k 


LIBRARY 

UN.-.  •:*:•—<'    OF 
CAL:u 
SANTA 


C\  -"\  *  \^<  of 


^  &C-X 


,<~T«V  Wells  toed  c 


hi 


v.z. 


CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  II. 


CHAPTER  I. 

PAGE 

ANDREW  JOHNSON  INSTALLED  AS  PRESIDENT.  —  CABINET  AND  SENATORS  WITNESSES 
TO  THE  CEREMONY.  —  RESPONSIBILITIES  OF  THE  NEW  PRESIDENT  DELICATE  IN 
CHARACTER.  —  REQUIRING  THE  HIGHEST  ORDER  OF  STATESMANSHIP.  —  THE 
QUESTION  OF  RECONSTRUCTION.  —  ITS  PECULIAR  DIFFICULTIES.  — NEW  AND  PER- 
PLEXING QUESTIONS. —CHARACTER  AND  CAREER  OF  MR.  JOHNSON. —BORN  IN 
NORTH  CAROLINA.  —  MIGRATES  TO  TENNESSEE.  —  His  RAPID  PROMOTION  IN 
THAT  STATE.  —  A  TAILOR  BY  TRADE.  —  WITHOUT  EDUCATION  — TAUGHT  TO 
READ  AT  FIFTEEN.  —  MAYOR  OF  TOWN  AT  TWENTY-TWO.  —  IN  THE  LEGISLA- 
TURE AT  TWENTY-SEVEN.  —  PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTOR  IN  1840  AT  THIRTY-TWO. — 
IN  CONGRESS  AT  THIRTY-FIVE.  —  GOVERNOR  FROM  1853  TO  1857.  —  UNITED-STATES 
SENATOR  IN  1857. —  His  SERVICE  IN  CONGRESS. —His  HOMESTEAD  POLICY.  — 
NECESSARY  ANTAGONISM  WITH  SLAVERY.  — His  IDEAL  OF  A  RURAL  POPULATION. 

—  BOLDNESS  OF  HIS  POLITICAL  COURSE  IN  TENNESSEE.  —  His  LOYALTY  TO  THE 
UNION.  —  SEPARATES  FROM  THE  DEMOCRATIC  CONSPIRATORS.  —  His  CAREER  IN 
THE  CIVIL  WAR. — APPOINTED  MILITARY  GOVERNOR  OF  TENNESSEE.  —  His  ABLB 
ADMINISTRATION  OF  THE  OFFICE.  —  FORESHADOWS  A  SEVERE  POLICY  AS  PRESI- 
DENT. —  CONTRAST  WITH  MR.  LINCOLN.— ANALYSIS  OF  JOHNSON'S  POSITION.— 
His  BRIEF  INAUGURAL  ADDRESS.  —  EFFECT  PRODUCED  BY  IT.  —  His  ADDRESS 
TO  AN  ILLINOIS  DELEGATION.  —  SIGNIFICANT  INDICATION  OF  A  HARSH  POLICY 

TOWARDS  THE  REBELS.  —  PRESTON  KING'S  INFLUENCE.  —  PRESIDENT'S  ADDRESS 

TO  CHRISTIAN  COMMISSION.  — To  LOYAL  SOUTHERNERS. —To  A  PENNSYLVANIA 
DELEGATION.  —  PRESIDENT'S  TONE  GROWS  STERNER  TOWARDS  "TRAITORS."  — 
STRIKING  CONVERSATION  WITH  SENATOR  WADE.  —  FUNERAL  CEREMONIES  OF 
THE  LATE  PRESIDENT.  —  REMAINS  CARRIED  TO  ILLINOIS.  —  IMPRESSIVE  SCENE 
IN  BALTIMORE. — IN  PHILADELPHIA.  —  BODY  REPOSES  IN  INDEPENDENCE  HALL. 

—  CONTRAST  WITH  FOUR  YEARS  BEFORE.  —  UNPARALLELED  DISPLAY  OF  FEEL- 
ING  IN   NEW  YORK.  — ORATION   BY    GEORGE   BANCROFT.  —  ELEGIAC  ODE   BY 
WILLIAM  CULLEN  BRYANT.  —  INTERMENT  IN  ILLINOIS.  —  CEREMONIES  COMPARED 

WITH  THOSE  OF  ROYALTY.  —  PROFOUND  FEELING  THROUGHOUT  THE  COUNTRY. 

—  PUBLIC  MANIFESTATION  OF  MOURNING  .       .       ;       .  .       .       .       .       1 

CHAPTER  II. 

MILITARY  REVIEW  IN  HONOR  OF  UNION  VICTORY.  — THE  EASTERN  AND  WESTERN 
ARMIES.  —  THEIR  GREAT  ACHIEVEMENTS.' — SPECIAL  INTEREST.  —  NUMBER  OF 
BATTLES  DURING  THE  WAR.  — NUMBER  EACH  YEAR.  —  STRUGGLE  OF  1864-65.— 
DISCIPLINE  OF  THE  ARMY.  —  MORAL  RESPONSIBILITY  OF  CONTINUING  THE  CON- 
TEST. —  NEEDLESS  SLAUGHTER  OF  MEN.  —  CONFEDERATE  RESPONSIBILITY.  — 
SPEECH  OF  ROBERT  M,  T.  HUNTER,  FOLLOWED  BY  JUDAH  P.  BENJAMIN.  — 
EXTREME  MEASURES  ADVOCATED  BY  HIM. —His  OVER-ZEAL. —MR.  BENJAMIN 

iii 


iv  CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  II. 

PAGE 

SEEKS  REFUGE  IN  ENGLAND.  —  His  SUCCESS  THERE  DUE  TO  ENGLISH  SYMPATHY 
WITH  THE  REBELLION-—  His  MALIGNITY  TOWARDS  THE  UNION.  —  SOUTHERN 
CHARACTER.  —  ITS  STRONG  POINTS  AND  ITS  WEAK  POINTS.— CONDUCT  OF  CON- 
FEDERATE CONGRESS.  —  THEIR  INFLAMMATORY  ADDRESS.  —  ITS  EXTRAVAGANCE 
AND  ABSURDITY. — JEFFERSON  DAVIS'S  ADDRESS  TO  CONGRESS.  —  His  LACK  OF 
MORAL  COURAGE.  — DISBANDMENT  OF  UNION  ARMY,  1,000,516  MEN.  — ANOTHER 
MILLION  GONE  BEFORE.  —  SELF-SUPPORT  AND  SELF- ADJUSTMENT.  —  COMPARISON 
WITH  THE  ARMY  OF  THE  REVOLUTION.  —  UNION  OFFICERS  ALL  YOUNG  MEN. 

—  AGES  OF  OFFICERS  IN  OTHER  WARS.  —  AGES  OF  REGULAR  ARMY  OFFICERS. 

—  OF  VOLUNTEER  OFFICERS.  —  HARMONY  OF  THE  Two.  —  SPECIAL  EFFICIENCY 
OF  THE  VOLUNTEERS.  —  MAGNITUDE  OF  THE  UNION  ARMY. —THE  INFANTRY, 
CAVALRY,  ARTILLERY.  —  NUMBER  OF  GENERALS.  —  NUMBER  OF  REGIMENTS.— 
MILITARY  RESOURCES  OF  THE  REPUBLIC.  —  ITS  SECURITY  IN  TIME  OF  DANGER,      18 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE  RECONSTRUCTION  PROBLEM.— THE  PRESIDENT'S  PUBLIC  ADDRESSES.  — TIME 
FOR  ACTION  ARRIVED.  —  PROCLAMATION  DECLARING  HOSTILITIES  CEASED.  — 
MANNER  OF  DEALING  WITH  INSURRECTIONARY  STATES.  —  MR.  LINCOLN'S  FIR'S! 
EFFORTS  AT  RECONSTRUCTION.  —  ELECTION  IN  LOUISIANA.  —  FLANDERS  AND 
HAHN. — MR.  LINCOLN'S  NOTE  TO  GENERAL  SHEPLEY.  —  To  CUTHBERT  BUL- 
LETT.— MR.  LINCOLN'S  DEFINITE  PLAN.  —  "  ONE-  TENTH  "  OF  VOTERS  TO  OR- 
GANIZE LOYAL  STATE  GOVERNMENT.  —  FREE-STATE  CONVENTION  IN  LOUISIANA. 

—  MICHAEL    HAHN    ELECTED    GOVERNOR.  —  CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION.  — 
MR.  LINCOLN'S  CONGRATULATIONS.  —  SIMILAR  ACTION  IN  ARKANSAS.  —  ISAAC 
MURPHY  ELECTED   GOVERNOR.  —  REPRESENTATION    IN   CONGRESS   DENIED    TO 
THESE  STATES. —MR.  SUMNER'S  RESOLUTION. —ADOPTED  BY  SENATE.  —  SIMI- 
LAR ACTION  IN  HOUSE.  —  CONFLICT  BETWEEN  THE  PRESIDENT  AND  CONGRESS. 

—  CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION.  —  THREE  FUNDAMENTAL  CONDI- 
TIONS.—  BILL  PASSED  JULY  4,  1864.  —  NOT  APPROVED  BY  THE  PRESIDENT. — 
His  REASONS  GIVEN  IN  A  PUBLIC  PROCLAMATION.  —  SENATOR  WADE  AND  H. 
WINTER   DAVIS    CRITICISE   THE    PROCLAMATION.  —  THEIR    PROTEST.  —  SUBSE- 
QUENT RESOLUTION  OF  CONGRESS.  —  THE   PRESIDENT'S  REPLY  TO  IT.  —  MR. 
LINCOLN'S  PROBABLE  COURSE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  RECONSTRUCTION. — RECON- 
STRUCTION OF  THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  TENNESSEE. — THE   QUICK  PROCESS   OF 
DOING.  —  RATIFIED   BY  POPULAR  VOTE,   25,293   TO   48.  — PARSON   BROWNLOW 
CHOSEN  GOVERNOR.  —  PATTERSON  AND  FOWLER  ELECTED   SENATORS.  —  JOHN- 
SON'S INAUGURATION  AS  VICE-PRESIDENT.  —  His  SPEECH.  —  WERE  THE  REBEL 
STATES  OUT  OF  THE  UNION  ?  — JOHNSON'S  VIEWS.— MR.  LINCOLN'S  VIEWS.— 
RADICAL  AND  CONSERVATIVE.  —  EXTRA  SESSION  DEBATED. — ADVERSE  DECIS- 
ION. —  ILL-LUCK  OF  EXTRA  SESSIONS  ...       .       .       .    •  »       •       .       •       .34 

CHAPTER  IV. 

PRESIDENT  JOHNSON  AND  THE  CABINET.  —  EFFECT  OF  VICE-PRESIDENT'S  ACCESSION. 

—  EXAMPLE  OF  TYLER  IN  1841  AND  FILLMORE  IN  1850. —A  VICE-PRESIDENT'S 
DIFFICULT  POSITION.  —  PERSONNEL  OF  CABINET  IN  1865.  —  ITS  NEARLY  EVEN 
DIVISION  ON  RECONSTRUCTION  ISSUES.  —  PRESUMED  POSITION  OF  EACH  MEMBER. 

—  STANTON,  HARLAN,  AND  DENNISON  RADICAL.  —  WELLES,  McCuLLOCH,  AND 
SPEED  CONSERVATIVE.  —  MR.  SEWARD'S  RELATION  TO  THE  PRESIDENT.  —  His 
POSITION  EXPLAINED.  —  MR.  SEWARD  REGAINS  HIS  HEALTH.  —  DISPLAY  OF  HIS 
PERSONAL    POWER.  —  CHARACTERISTICS   OF   MR.   SEWARD.  —  SUPERIORITY  OF 
HIS  MIND.  —  TENDENCY  OF  THE  PRESIDENT'S  MIND.  —  SOCIAL  INFLUENCES  AT 
WORK  UPON  HIM.  — His  RADICAL  CHANGE  OF  POSITION.  —  PRESIDENT'S  PROC- 
LAMATION MAY  29.  — AMNESTY  AND  PARDON  TO  REBELS.— THIRTEEN  EXCEPTED 


CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  II.  V 

PAGE 

CLASSES.  —  THE  "  TWENTY-THOUSAND-DOLLAR  "  DISABILITY.  —WARMLY  OPPOSED 
BY  MR.  SEWARD.  —  CLEMENCY  PROMISED  TO  EXCEPTED  CLASSES.  —  PARDONS 
APPLIED  FOR.  —  FOURTEEN  THOUSAND  GRANTED  IN  NINE  MONTHS.  —  ANOTHER 
PROCLAMATION  OF  SAME  DATE.  —  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNORS  APPOINTED.  —  FIRST 
FOR  NORTH  CAROLINA.  —  EXISTING  GOVERNMENTS  IN  VIRGINIA,  LOUISIANA, 
ARKANSAS,  AND  TENNESSEE  RECOGNIZED.  —  PRESIDENT'S  RECONSTRUCTION  POL- 
ICY.—Now  FULLY  DISCLOSED.  —  OATH  OF  ALLEGIANCE  PRESCRIBED.  —  PROVIS- 
IONAL GOVERNORS  TO  ASSEMBLE  CONVENTIONS.  —  THE  CONVENTIONS  TO  FORM 
CONSTITUTIONS.  —  LEGISLATURES  THEN  TO  ASSEMBLE.  —  WHOLE  MACHINERY  OF 
GOVERNMENT  IN  MOTION.  —  REBELS  IN  POSSESSION  OF  STATE  GOVERNMENTS. — 
COLORED  MEN  EXCLUDED  FROM  ALL  PARTICIPATION.  —  SUFFRAGE  LEFT  TO  THE 
STATES.  —  PRESIDENT'S  PERSONAL  POSITION  ON  SUFFRAGE.  —  RECONSTRUCTION 
SCHEME  COMPLETE  IN  JULY.  —  THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE  REPUBLICAN  PARTY. 

—  His   BELIEF  THAT  THE  PARTY  WOULD  FOLLOW  HIM.  — His  HOSTILITY  TO 
RADICALS.  — PRESIDENT  DEPENDS  ON  CONDUCT   OF  THE  SOUTH.  —  PUBLIC  IN- 
TEREST TRANSFERRED  TO  THAT  SECTION 56 

CHAPTER  V. 

GREAT  OPPORTUNITY  GIVEN  TO  THE  SOUTH.  —  THEIR  RESPONSE  TO  THE  PRESIDENT'S 
TREATMENT.  —  NORTHERN  DESIRE  FOR  RESTORATION  OF  THE  UNION.  —  SOUTH 
DOES  NOT  RESPOND  TO  IT.  —  SOUTHERN  RECONSTRUCTION  CONVENTIONS.  —  IN- 
COMPLETE AND  ILL-DIGESTED  PROCEEDINGS.  —  REBELS  APPLY  FOR  SEATS  IN 
CONGRESS.  —  IRON-CLAD  OATH  IN  THEIR  WAY.  —  THEY  DENOUNCE  IT  AS  UNCON- 
STITUTIONAL.—  COURSE  OF  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  —  SOUTHERN  FEELING 
TOWARDS  THE  UNION.  —  THEIR  CONVENTIONS  EXHIBIT  HATRED.  —  HOSTILE 
MANIFESTATIONS.  —  EXPRESSIONS  OF  PRESS  AND  STUMP  ORATORS.  —  LEADING 
REBELS  NOMINATED  FOR  OFFICE.  —  SOUTH  DESCRIBED  BY  MR.  FESSENDEN'S 
COMMITTEE.  —  SOUTH  MISLED  BY  NORTHERN  DEMOCRACY  IN  1865.  —  FORMER 
CALAMITY  FROM  SAME  CAUSE  IN  18(31.— WHAT  CONGRESS  WOULD  DEMAND  OF 
THE  SOUTH.  —  THREE  INDISPENSABLE  REQUIREMENTS.  —  SOUTHERN  LEGISLA- 
TURES DEFIANTLY  RESIST.  —  CHARACTER  OF  THOSE  LEGISLATURES.  —  PRACTICAL 

RE-ENACTMENT  OF  THE  SLAVE-CODE.  —  CRUELTY  OF  ALABAMA  STATUTES.— 
FRAUDULENT  IN  THEIR  NATURE.  —  COURSE  OF  THE  CITY  OF  MOBILE.  —  STAT- 
UTES OF  FLORIDA  STILL  WORSE.  —  UNFAIR  TAXATION.  —  POLL-TAX  OF  THREE 
DOLLARS.  —  A  LIEN  UPON  THE  NEGRO'S  LABOR.  —  OPPRESSION  OF  THE  NEGRO. 

—  ENACTMENTS  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA.  —  CHARACTERIZED  BY  RANK  INJUSTICE. 

—  PENAL  ENACTMENTS  IN  MISSISSIPPI.  —  ATROCIOUS  PROVISIONS.  —  LAWS   OF 
LOUISIANA  WORST  OF  ALL.  —  CAPITATION  TAX  IN  THE  SOUTH.  —  ITS  UNJUST 
EFFECT.  —  SCHOOL  LAWS.  —  EDUCATION  PRACTICALLY  DENIED  TO  THE  NEGRO. 

—  HE    IS    TAXED    FOR    THE    EDUCATION    OF  THE   WHITES.  —  DISPROPORTION    OF 

BURDENS  PLACED  UPON  HIM.  — REVIEW  OF  THE  BLACK  CODE. —  SOME  DETAILS 
OF  ITS  PROVISIONS.  —  INCREDIBLY  CRUEL.  —  THE  SOUTH  WITHOUT  EXCUSE  FOR 
ITS  ENACTMENT.  —  THEIR  DETERMINATION  TO  VINDICATE  SLAVERY.  —  To  BRING 
REPROACH  ON  THE  NORTH.  —  INFLUENCE  OF  THESE  PROCEEDINGS  ON  MR. 
SEWARD.  —  His  MODE  OF  SELF-JUSTIFICATION.  —  SEVERELY  CENSURED  BY  HIS 
OLD  SUPPORTERS.  — MISLED  BY  THE  COURSE  OF  EVENTS.  — His  Loss  OF  POPU- 
LARITY   .  .  .  ,  ,  .  .  .  •  .84 

CHAPTER  VI. 

MEETING  OF  THE  THIRTY-NINTH  CONGRESS.  —  RE-ELECTION  OF  SPEAKER  COLFAX.  — 
His  ADDRESS  ON  TAKING  THE  CHAIR.  —  THADDEUS  STEVENS  MOVES  FOR  A  COM- 
MITTEE OF  RECONSTRUCTION.  —  RESISTED  BY  DEMOCRATS.  —  REBEL  CONTESTANTS 
DENIED  ADMISSION  TO  THE  FLOOR.  —  MUCH  FEELING  ON  THE  QUESTION.  —  PRO- 


vi  CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  II. 


PAGE 
CEEDINGS  OF  THE  SENATE.  —  PROPOSITIONS  OF  MR.  SUMNER.  —  ANNUAL  MESSAGE 

OF  THE  PRESIDENT.  —  OUTLINE  OF  ITS  CONTENTS.  — APPARENTLY  CONSERVATIVE 
IN  TONE. —NOT  PERSONALLY  AGGRESSIVE.  — LEADING  MEN  OF  THE  THIRTY- 
NINTH  CONGRESS. —  DEATH  OF  BOTH  VERMONT  SENATORS.  —  NEW  SENATORS. — 
NEW  MEMBERS  OF  THE  HOUSE.  —  SKETCHES  OF  PROMINENT  SENATORS  AND 
REPRESENTATIVES.  —  PRESIDENT  JOHNSON'S  PATRONAGE.  —  UNPRECEDENTED 
VOLUME  OF  IT  DUE  LARGELY  TO  THE  WAR.  —  DANGER  OF  ITS  USE  AGAINST 
REPUBLICANS.  —  APPREHENSIONS  OF  REPUBLICANS.  —  RECONSTRUCTION  RESOLU- 
TION IN  THE  SENATE.  —  AMENDED  IN  THAT  BODY.  —  CONCURRENCE  OF  HOUSE. 
—  APPOINTMENT  OF  COMMITTEE.  —  STRONG  CHARACTER  OF  ITS  MEMBERS.  — 
HOUSE  RESOLUTIONS.  —  DEBATE  ON  RECONSTRUCTION.  —  LONGEST  DEBATE  IN 
THE  HISTORY  OF  CONGRESS.  —  OPENED  BY  MR.  STEVENS.  —  VERY  RADICAL  IN 
ITS  TONE.  —  HE  SKETCHES  CHANGED  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION.  —  GIVES  OF- 
FENSE TO  THE  ADMINISTRATION.  —  MR.  HENRY  J.  RAYMOND.  —  His  REPLY  TO 
MR.  STEVENS.  —His  STRONG  ATTACHMENT  TO  MR.  SEWARD.  — THEORY  OF  DEAD 
STATES.  —  SPEECH  OF  MR.  SPALDING.  —  MR.  SHELLABARGER  REPLIES  TO  MR. 
RAYMOND.  —  EXHAUSTIVE  SPEECH.  —  GAVE  HIM  A  LEADING  PLACE  IN  THE 
HOUSE.  —  SEVERE  ATTACK  ON  THE  SOUTH.  —  RESOLUTIONS  OF  MR.  VOORHEES 
SUSTAINING  ADMINISTRATION.  —  SPEECH  IN  SUPPORT  OF  THEM.  —MR.  BINGHAM'S 
REPLY.  —  HOUSE  REFUSES  TO  INDORSE  THE  ADMINISTRATION.  —  Two  REPUBLI- 
CANS JOIN  DEMOCRATIC  VOTE. —DISAPPOINTMENT  OF  MR.  RAYMOND.  —  THINKS 
DEMOCRATIC  SUPPORT  A  MISFORTUNE.  —  CHARACTER  OF  MR.  RAYMOND.  —  His 
GREAT  ABILITY.  —  His  LIFE  SHORTENED.  —  DIED  AT  FORTY-NINE.  Ill 


CHAPTER  VII. 

SENATE  DEBATE  ON  RECONSTRUCTION.  —  SPEECH  OF  MR.  WILSON.  —  DENOUNCES 
THE  PRO-SLAVERY  STATUTES  OF  SOUTHERN  STATES.  —  REPLY  OF  REVERDY 
JOHNSON.  —  MR.  SUMNER  SUSTAINS  MR.  WILSON.  —  SPEECHES  OF  WILLARD 
SAULSBURY  AND  MR.  COWAN.  —  EARNEST  DEBATE  BEFORE  HOLIDAYS.  —  EM- 
BARRASSMENT OF  THE  REPUBLICAN  PARTY.  —  THE  PRESIDENT'S  PRESUMED 
STRENGTH.  —  POSITION  OF  COMMERCIAL  MEN.  —  FIRMNESS  OF  REPUBLICAN 
MEMBERS  OF  CONGRESS.  —  CONTRASTED  WITH  CONDUCT  OF  WHIGS  IN  1841. — 
RESOLUTION  OF  MR.  COWAN.— MR.  SUMNER'S  AMENDMENT.— REPORTS  OF 
COVODE  AND  SCHURZ  CALLED  FOR.  — PRESIDENT'S  SPECIAL  MESSAGE. — SENDS 
REPORT  OF  MR.  SCHURZ  AND  LIEUTENANT-GENERAL  GRANT.  —  CALLS  SPECIAL 
ATTENTION  TO  GENERAL  GRANT'S  REPORT.  —  REPORT  APPARENTLY  SUSTAINS 
THE  ADMINISTRATION. — MR.  SUMNER  DENOUNCES  PRESIDENT'S  MESSAGE. — 
COMPARES  JOHNSON  TO  PIERCE.  — MR.  SCHURZ'S  REPORT  SUBMITTED.  — His 
PICTURE  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  CONDITION.  —  His  RECOMMENDATIONS. — FAVORS 
NEGRO  SUFFRAGE.  —  How  MR.  SCHURZ  WAS  SELECTED. —EXTENT  OF  HIS  TOUR 
IN  THE  SOUTH.  —  How  GENERAL  GRANT  WAS  SELECTED.  —  EXTENT  OF  HIS 
TOUR  IN  THE  SOUTH.  —  DIVERGENT  CONCLUSIONS  OF  THE  Two.  —  SUBSEQUENT 
CHANGE  OF  POSITION  OF  BOTH.  —  INTERESTING  CASE  IN  THE  UNITED-STATES 
SENATE. —  JOHN  P.  STOCKTON  SWORN  IN  AS  SENATOR  FROM  NEW  JERSEY,— 
PROTEST  AGAINST  HIS  RIGHT  TO  A  SEAT.  —  JUDICIARY  COMMITTEE  REPORT  IN 
HIS  FAVOR.— DEBATE  IN  THE  SENATE.  —  MR.  CLARKE  OF  NEW  HAMPSHIRE. 
—  ABLE  SPEECH  OF  MR.  FESSENDEN.  —  HE  EXAMINES  THE  CONSTITUTIONAL 
GROUND.  —  His  CONCLUSIVE  REASONING.  —  LONG  DEBATE.  —  DECISION  AGAINST 
MR.  STOCKTON.  —  IMPORTANT  RESULTS  FLOWING  FROM  IT.  —  CONGRESS  REGU- 
LATES TIME  AND  MANNER  OF  ELECTING  SENATORS.  — CHANGE  FROM  STATE 
CONTROL  TO  NATIONAL  CONTROL, —ALEXANDER  G.  CATTELL  SUCCEEDS  MR. 
STOCKTON.  —  DEATH  OF  MR.  WRIGHT.  —  FREDERICK  T,  FRELINGHUYSEN  SUC- 
CEEDS HIM.  


CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  II.  vii 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

PAGE 

THE  PRESIDENT  OFFENDED.  —  ADVERSE  VOTE  IN  CONGRESS  SURPRISES  HIM. — 
FREEDMEN'S  BUREAU  ESTABLISHED.  —  MAJOR-GENERAL  HOWARD  APPOINTED 
COMMISSIONER.  — His  CHARACTER. —DEFICIENCY  OF  THE  BUREAU.  —  SUPPLE- 
MENTARY ACT.  —  ITS  PROVISIONS.  —  CONFLICT  WITH  STATE  POWER.  —  LONG  DE- 
BATE.—  SPEECH  OF  IGNATIUS  DONNELLY.  —  THE  PRESIDENT'S  VETO.  —  SEVERE 
ATTACK  UPON  THE  POLICY.  —  EXPENSE  OF  THE  BUREAU.  —  SENATE  FAILS  TO 
PASS  BILL  OVER  VETO.— ANOTHER  BILL  TO  SAME  EFFECT  PASSED.  — MORB 

GUARDED  IN  ITS   PROVISIONS.  —  PRESIDENT  VETOES  THE   SECOND  BlLL.  —  SENATE 

AND  HOUSE  PASS  IT  OVER  THE  VETO.  —  UNPOPULARITY  OF  THE  MEASURE.  — 
SENATOR  TRUMBULL  INTRODUCES  CIVIL  RIGHTS  BILL.  — ITS  PROVISIONS.— 
RADICAL  IN  THEIR  EFFECT.  —  SPEECH  OF  REVERDY  JOHNSON.  —  DEBATE  IN 
THE  HOUSE.  —  PRESIDENT  VETOES  THE  BILL.  —  MAKES  ELABORATE  ARGUMENT 
AGAINST  IT.  —  EXCITING  DEBATE  ON  VETO.  —  MR.  TRUMBULL'S  SPEECH.  — 
SEVERE  REVIEW  OF  PRESIDENT'S  COURSE.  —  EXCITING  SPEECH  OF  MR.  WADE. 

—  ILLNESS  OF  MR.  WRIGHT.  —  SEVERE  REMARKS  OF  MR.  McDouGAL  AND  MR. 
GUTHRIE.  —  DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  —  BOTH  BRANCHES  PASS  BILL  OVER  VETO. 

—  RADICAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  MEASURE.  —  RELATIONS  OF  PRESIDENT  AND 
CONGRESS.  —  OPENLY  HOSTILE.  —  POPULAR  MEETING  IN  WASHINGTON.  —  PRESI- 
DENT'S ACTION  APPROVED.  —  PRESIDENT'S   SPEECH  22o  OF   FEBRUARY.  —  ITS 
UNDIGNIFIED  AND  VIOLENT  CHARACTER.  —  CALLS  MEN  BY  NAME.  —  UNFAVOR- 
ABLE IMPRESSION  UPON  THE  COUNTRY.  —  THE  PRESIDENT  LOSING  GROUND. — 
REPUBLICANS  IN  CONGRESS  ANXIOUS.  —  EXCITING  PERIOD.  —  SENATOR  LANE  OF 
KANSAS.  — His  POLITICAL  DEFECTION. —His   SUICIDE.  — PERSONAL  HISTORY. 

—  His  PUBLIC  SERVICES.  —  SUICIDE  OF  PRESTON  KING.  —  SUPPOSED  REASONS 
FOR  THE  ACT 162 

CHAPTER  IX. 

CONTEST  BETWEEN  PRESIDENT  AND  CONGRESS.  —  POINTS  OF  DIFFERENCE. — WHAT 
CONGRESS  INSISTED  ON.  — REQUIRED  DEFINITION  OF  AMERICAN  CITIZENSHIP.— 
POLITICAL  DISABILITIES.  —  THE  PUBLIC  CREDIT.  —  PROTECTION  OF  NATIONAL 
PENSIONS. — REPUDIATION  OF  REBEL  DEBT.  —  POSSIBLE  PAYMENT  FOR  SLAVES. 

—  APPREHENSIONS  OF  CAPITALISTS.  — DANGER  HANGING  OVER  NATIONAL  TREAS- 
URY.—  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  CONSTITUTION.  —  SHOULD  REBEL  STATES 
PARTICIPATE.  —  MR.  SEWARD'S  VIEW.— MR.  THADDEUS  STEVENS'S  VIEW.  —PRO- 
CEEDINGS OF  RECONSTRUCTION  COMMITTEE.  —  PROPOSED  BASES  OF  REPRESENTA- 
TION.—  AMENDMENT  PROPOSED  BY  MR.  SPALDING.  —  BY  MR.  ELAINE.  —  BY  MR. 
CONKLING.  —  SPEECH  BY  MR.  JENCKES  OF  RHODE  ISLAND.  — BY  MR.  BAKER 
AND  MR.  INGERSOLL  OF  ILLINOIS.  —  BY  MR.  SHELLABARGER.  —  BY  MR.  PIKE 
OF  MAINE. — MR.  SCHENCK'S  AMENDMENT.  —  HOUSE  ADOPTS  AMENDMENT. — 
OPPOSED  IN  THE  SENATE.  — LONG  SPEECH  OF  MR.  SUMNER.— REPLY  OF  MR. 
FESSENDEN.  —  SPEECH  OF  SENATOR  HENDERSON. —His  RADICAL  PROPOSITION. 

—  SENATE  DEFEATS  HOUSE  AMENDMENT.  —  NEW  PROPOSITION  FROM  THE  RE- 
CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.  —  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT  TO  THE  CONSTITUTION 
PROPOSED.  — ITS  ORIGINAL  FORM. —DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  —  PROCEEDINGS  IN 
THE  SENATE.  — LONG  DEBATE.  —  SPEECHES  BY  MR.  HOWARD,  MR.  HENDRICKS, 
MR.  SHERMAN,  MR.  REVERDY  JOHNSON,  MR.  DOOLITTLE.  —  FINAL  ADOPTION 
OF   THE   FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT  BY  BOTH  BRANCHES. — NOTIFICATION  TO 
THE  STATES  JUNE  16.  —  PROMPT  ADOPTION  BY  TENNESSEE.  —  TENNESSEE  RE- 
ADMITTED TO  REPRESENTATION.  —  ACTION  OF  SENATE  AND  HOUSE  THEREON. 

—  REASONS  ASSIGNED   FOR   PASSING   THE   BILL.  —  PRESIDENT   APPROVES   THB 
BlLL,   BUT  DISAPPROVES   THE  REASONS   FOR  ITS   PASSAGE.  —  HlS   INGENUOUS 
CENSURE  OF  CONGRESS.  —ADJOURNMENT  OF  CONGRESS.  —IMPENDING  POLITICAL 
CONTEST.  —  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN  THE  PRESIDENT  AND  CONGRESS  .  .    188 


viii  CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  II. 

CHAPTER  X. 

PAGB 

A  CABINET  CRISIS.— RESIGNATION  OF  WILLIAM  DENNISON,  POSTMASTER-GENERAL, 
JAMES  SPEED,  ATTORNEY-GENERAL,  AND  JAMES  HARLAN,  SECRETARY  OF  THE 
INTERIOR.  —  SUCCEEDED  RESPECTIVELY  BY  ALEXANDER  W.  RANDALL,  HENRY 
STANBURY,  AND  ORVILLE  H.  BROWNING.  —  POLITICAL  CAMPAIGN  OF  1866.  — 
FOUR  NATIONAL  CONVENTIONS.  —  Two  FAVORING  THE  PRESIDENT;  TWO  AD- 
VERSE. —  PHILADELPHIA  CONVENTION,  AUGUST  14,  FAVORING  THE  PRESIDENT. 

—  IMPRESSIVE  IN  NUMBERS,   DISTINGUISHED  IN   DELEGATES.  —  PHILADELPHIA 
CONVENTION  OF  SEPTEMBER  13.  —  SOUTHERN  LOYALISTS  AND  NORTHERN  SYM- 
PATHIZERS. —  LIST  OF  PROMINENT  MEN  IN  ATTENDANCE.  —  MARKED  EFFECT 
OF  ITS  PROCEEDINGS.  —  SPEECH  OF  HONORABLE  JAMES  SPEED.  —  ADDRESS  TO 
THE  PEOPLE.  —  WRITTEN    BY   THE   HONORABLE  J.  A.  J.   C  RES  WELL.  —  SOL- 
DIERS' CONVENTION  AT  CLEVELAND.  —  FAVORABLE  TO  PRESIDENT.  —  SPEECH  OF 
GENERAL  EWING.  —  CONVENTION  PRINCIPALLY  DEMOCRATIC  IN  MEMBERSHIP. 

—  ITS  PROCEEDINGS  INEFFECTIVE.  —  SOLDIERS'  CONVENTION  AT  PITTSBURG.  — 
HOSTILE  TO  PRESIDENT.  —  GENERAL  Cox  PRESIDES.  —  DISTINGUISHED  OFFICERS 
PRESENT.  —  TWENTY-FIVE   THOUSAND    SOLDIERS    PRESENT.  —  GREAT   EFFECT 
FOLLOWED  IT  IN  THE  COUNTRY.  —  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT  THE  RALLYINO- 
POINT.  —  POLITICAL   EVENTS   OF   THE    SUMMER.  —  HOSTILE   TO    PRESIDENT.  — 
NEW-ORLEANS  RIOT  OF  JULY  30.  —  GREAT  SLAUGHTER.  —  REBEL  OFFICERS  IN 
LOUISIANA  RESPONSIBLE.  —  INVESTIGATED  BY  CONGRESS.  —  ALSO  BY  MILITARY 
AUTHORITIES.  —  REPORTS   SUBSTANTIALLY  AGREE.  —  CENSURE  OF  THE  PRESI- 
DENT. —  RESULT  HURTFUL  TO  HIS  ADMINISTRATION.  —  His   FAMOUS   TOUR.  — 
INJURIOUS  TO  HIS  ADMINISTRATION.  —  REPUBLICANS  VICTORIOUS  IN  ELECTIONS 
THROUGHOUT  THE  NORTH.  —  DEMOCRATS  VICTORIOUS  THROUGHOUT  THE  SOUTH. 

—  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  REPUBLICAN  BY  THREE  TO  ONE.  —  PRESIDENT 
DEPRESSED.  —  IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  ELECTIONS  OF  1866.  —  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE.  — 
THE  DIFFICULTY  OF  IMPOSING  IT  ON  THE  SOUTH.  —  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT 
THE  TEST  FOR  RECONSTRUCTION  .       .       .       .       .       .  .       .  .218 

CHAPTER  XL 

SECOND  SESSION  THIRTY-NINTH  CONGRESS. — PRESIDENT'S  MESSAGE.  —  REPEATS  HIS 
FORMER  RECOMMENDATIONS.  — MISCHIEVOUS  EFFECT  PRODUCED  IN  THE  SOUTH. 

—  THE  TEN  CONFEDERATE  STATES  VOTE  ON  THE  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT.  — 
REJECTED   BY   EVERY   ONE. —DEFIANCE   TO   CONGRESS.  —  MADNESS   OF   THE 
SOUTHERN    LEADERS.  —  DETERMINATION    OF    THE    NORTH.  —  NEW   PLAN    OF 
RECONSTRUCTION.  —  BILL  REPORTED  BY  MR.  STEVENS.  —  SOUTH  DIVIDED  INTO 
MILITARY   DISTRICTS.  —  BILL   ELABORATELY   DEBATED.  —  VIEWS   OF  LEADING 
MEMBERS.  —  EXTRACTS  FROM  SPEECHES.  —  BLAINE  AMENDMENT. — DEBATED  IN 
THE   HOUSE.  —  OPPOSED   BY   MR.    STEVENS.  —  REJECTED   IN   THE   HOUSE.  — 
ADOPTED  IN  DIFFERENT  FORM  IN  THE  SENATE.  —  FINALLY  INCORPORATED  IN 
RECONSTRUCTION   BILL.  —  PRESIDENT  VETOES   THE   BILL.  — PASSED  OVER  HIS 
VETO.  —  CHARACTER  OF  THE  MEASURE.  —  THE  SOUTH  FORCES  THE  ADOPTION 
OF  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE.  —  NOT  CONTEMPLATED  ORIGINALLY  BY  THE  NORTH.  — 
CHARACTER  OF  THE  STRUGGLE.  —  EXECUTIVE  PATRONAGE.  —  PRESIDENT'S  POL- 
ICY TO   BE   SUSTAINED    BY    IT.  —  THE    POWER   OF    REMOVAL.  —  EARLY    DECISION 

OF  THE  GOVERNMENT. — VIEWS  OF  MR.  MADISON  AND  MR.  WEBSTER.  —  OF 
HAMILTON  AND  OF  WASHINGTON.  —  REPUBLICAN  LEADERS  DETERMINED  TO 
CURTAIL  THE  POWER.  —  MR.  WILLIAMS  INTRODUCES  TENURE  OF  OFFICE  BlLL. 

—  SPEECHES  OF  EDMUNDS,  HOWE,  AND  OTHERS.  —  PRESIDENT  VETOES  THE  BILL. 

—  PASSED  OVER  HIS  VETO.  —DOUBTFUL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  MEASURE.  —  REPUB- 
LICAN DISTRUST  OF  IT.  — NEW  STATES  IN  THE  NORTH-WEST.  — MR.  LINCOLN'S 
POLICY  SHOWN  IN  THE  CASE  OF  NEVADA.  —  INCREASE  OF  FREE  TERRITORIES. 


CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  II.  ix 

—  NEBRASKA  AND  COLORADO  APPLY  TOR  ADMISSION.  —  PRESIDENT  JOHNSON 
VETOES  THE  BlLL. — ADMISSION  OF  COLORADO  PREVENTED.  —  POWER  OF  PARDON 
AND  AMNESTY  BY  PROCLAMATION  TAKEN  FROM  THE  PRESIDENT.  —  SCANDALS 
REPORTED *        .       •       .       ..        .       .    246 

CHAPTER  XII. 

MEETING  OF  FORTIETH  CONGRESS,  MARCH  4TH,  1867.  —  CONSPICUOUS  CHANGES  IN 
SENATE  AND  HOUSE.  —  CAMERON,  CONKLING,  MORTON,  IN  SENATE.  —  BUTLER, 
PETERS,  BECK,  IN  HOUSE. —MR.  JAMES  BROOKS  OBJECTS  TO  THE  ORGANIZA- 
TION OF  THE  HOUSE.  —  SEVENTEEN  STATES  ABSENT.  — THE  CLERK  DECLINES 
TO  RECEIVE  HIS  MOTION. — THIRD  ELECTION  OF  MR.  COLFAX  AS  SPEAKER. — 
SUPPLEMENTARY  RECONSTRUCTION  ACT. —  THE  PRESIDENT'S  PROMPT  VETO.— 
PASSED  OVER  HIS  OBJECTIONS.  —  CONGRESS  ADJOURNS  TO  JULY  3o.  —  SECOND 
SUPPLEMENTARY  ACT  OF  RECONSTRUCTION.  —  ANOTHER  VETO.  —  OMINOUS 
WORDS  FROM  THE  PRESIDENT.  —  REPUBLICANS  DISQUIETED.  —  CONGRESS  AD- 
JOURNS TO  NOVEMBER. — THE  SOUTH  PLACED  UNDER  MILITARY  GOVERNMENT. 

—  PRACTICAL  RECONSTRUCTION. — CONVENTIONS  IN  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES. — 
CONSTITUTIONS  SUBMITTED  TO  THE  PEOPLE.  —  SECOND  SESSION  FORTIETH  CON- 
GRESS. —  AGGRESSIVE   MESSAGE  FROM   THE   PRESIDENT.  —  SOUTHERN   STATES 

RE-ADMITTED  TO  REPRESENTATION.  —  ANOTHER  VETO  FROM  THE  PRESIDENT.  — 

RECONSTRUCTION  CONTEST  PRACTICALLY  ENDED. —REPRESENTATIVES  AND  SEN- 
ATORS FROM  THE  SOUTH.  —  MISTAKES  OF  FORMER  SLAVE-HOLDERS.  —  UNFOR- 
TUNATE BLUNDERS.  —  PECULIAR  MENTAL  QUALITIES  OF  PRESIDENT  JOHNSON. 

—  THE  VETO  POWER.  —  ITS  INFREQUENT  USE  BY  EARLIER  PRESIDENTS.  —  EX- 
AMPLE OF  JACKSON.  —  FOLLOWED  BY  HIS  SUCCESSORS.  — DIFFERENCE  BETWEEN 
DEMOCRATIC  AND  WHIG  PRESIDENTS.  — MR.  TYLER  AND  MR.  JOHNSON.  —  RATI- 
FICATION OF  THE  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT.  —  PROCLAIMED  BY  MR.  SEWARD. 

—  IMPORTANCE  OF  ITS  PROVISIONS.  —  SINGULAR  HOSTILITY  OF  THE  DEMOCRATS. 

—  A  NEW  CHARTER  OF  FREEDOM.  —  SWEEPS  AWAY  OPPRESSION  AND  EVERY 
DENIAL  OF  JUSTICE.  —  CREDIT  OF  IT  CONCEDED  TO  THE  REPUBLICANS       .       .    283 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

GOVERNMENT  FINANCES  AFTER  THE  WAR.  —  DIFFICULTIES  OF  THE  SITUATION.  —  IN- 
TREPIDITY OF  CONGRESS.  —  ITS  GREAT  TASK.  —  $600,000,000  BILL.  —  SUMMARY 
OF  PUBLIC  DEBT,  DECEMBER,  1865.  —  FUNDED  AND  FLOATING  OBLIGATIONS. — 
AGGREGATE  DEBT,  JANUARY  1,  1866,  $2,739,491,745.  —  $1,600,000,000  FLOATING 
OBLIGATIONS.  —  MR.  MCCULLOCH'S  ESTIMATES. —  His  FINANCIAL  POLICY.— 
CONTRACTION  THE  LEADING  FEATURE.  —  WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE  REPORT 
A  FUNDING  BILL.  —  HOUSE  DEBATE  THEREON.  —  SENATE  DEBATE.  —  FINAL  PAS- 
SAGE.—REVENUE  LAWS  IN  CONGRESS. —CONTRASTED  WITH  BRITISH  PARLIA- 
MENT.—LARGE  REDUCTION  OF  INTERNAL  TAXES.  —  SECOND  REDUCTION  OF 
INTERNAL  TAXES.  —  CONTRACTION  POLICY  OPPRESSIVE.  —  INDIRECT  RELIEF.  — 
HOSTILITY  RAPIDLY  INCREASES.  —  PROGRESS  OF  FUNDING  BILL.  —  REPEAL  OF 
CONTRACTION  BILL.  —  ITS  EVIL  EFFECTS.  —  FURTHER  REDUCTION  OF  INTERNAL 
TAXES.  —  FINANCIAL  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  GOVERNMENT.  —  LARGE  REDUC- 
TION OF  NATIONAL  DEBT.  —  VALUABLE  TREASURY  OFFICIALS.  —  PURCHASE  OF 
ALASKA.  —  PRICE,  $7,200,000  IN  GOLD  COIN.  —  PURCHASE  AT  FIRST  UNPOPULAR. 

—  RESISTANCE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  —  MR.  WASHBURNE  AND  GENERAL  BUTLER  OP- 
POSE.—TREATY  ABLY  SUSTAINED  BY  GENERAL  BANKS.  —  INTERESTING  DEBATE. 

—  MANY  PARTICIPANTS.  —  POWER  OF   THE  HOUSE  RESPECTING  TREATIES.  — 
CHRONIC  CONTROVERSY.  —  THE  BILL  PASSED.  — OPINION  OF  JUDGE  MCLEAN.— 
OF  MR.  JEFFERSON.  —  EXTENT  OF  ALASKA.  —  VALUE  OF  IT.  —  ITS  ELEMENTS 
OF  WEALTH.  —  FIRST  NORTHERN  TERRITORY  ACQUIRED  BY  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

—  NEGOTIATION  ABLY  CONDUCTED  BY  MR.  SEWARD 317 


x  CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  IT. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

PAGE 

IMPEACHMENT  OF  PRESIDENT  JOHNSON.  —  FIRST  MOVEMENT  THERETO.— MR.  ASH- 
LEY'S GRAVE  CHARGES.  —  GENERAL  GRANT'S  IMPORTANT  TESTIMONY.  —  JUDI- 
CIARY COMMITTEE  DIVIDE.  —  IMPEACHMENT  DEFEATED,  DECEMBER,  1867.  — 
ANALYSIS  OF  VOTE.  —  SUSPENSION  OF  MR.  STANTON.  —  TENURE-OF-OFFICE 
LAW.  —  SENATE  DISAPPROVES  MR.  STANTON'S  SUSPENSION.  —  MR.  STANTON  RE- 
STORED AS  SECRETARY  OF  WAR.  — AN  UNWELCOME  CABINET  OFFICER.  —  PRE- 
VIOUS VIEWS  OF  LEADING  SENATORS.  — PRESIDENT'S  ANOMALOUS  SITUATION. 

—  HE   REMOVES   MR.  STANTON.  —  APPOINTS  LORENZO  THOMAS  Ad  Interim.  — 
SENATE  CONDEMNS  THE  PRESIDENT'S  COURSE.  —  IMPEACHMENT  MOVED  IN  THE 
HOUSE.  —  EXCITING    DEBATE.  —  IMPEACHMENT     CARRIED.  —  MANAGERS     AP- 
POINTED.—  ARTICLES  OF  IMPEACHMENT  PRESENTED  TO  THE  SENATE.  —  THOMAS 

EWING  NOMINATED   FOR  SECRETARY    OF  WAR.— NOT    CONFIRMED.  —  COURT    OF 

IMPEACHMENT.  —  THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE.  — THE  PRESIDENT'S  COUNSEL.  — JUDGE 
CURTIS.  —  MR.  EVARTS.  —  MR.  GROESBECK.  —  THE  PRESIDENT'S  ANSWER.  — 
GENERAL  BUTLER'S  ARGUMENT. — TESTIMONY  PRESENTED  BY  MANAGERS. — 
ARGUMENT  OF  JUDGE  CURTIS.— THE  PRESIDENT'S  WITNESSES. -•- RE JECTION 
OF  TESTIMONY  BY  SENATE.  — TESTIMONY  CONCLUDED.  —  ARGUMENT  OF  GEN- 
ERAL LOGAN.  — OF  MR.  BOUTWELL.  — OF  MR.  NELSON.  — OF  MR.  GROESBECK. 

—  OF  THADDEUS  STEVENS.  —  OF  THOMAS  WILLIAMS. — OF  MR.  EVARTS.  —  OP 
MR.  STANBERY.  —  OF  MR.  BINGHAM.  —  TWENTY-NINE   SENATORS  FILE  THEIR 
OPINIONS — FIRST  VOTE  ON  LAST  ARTICLE.  —  GENERAL  INTEREST  AND  EX- 
CITEMENT. —  THE  RESULT.  —  ACQUITTAL  OF  PRESIDENT. —VIEWS  OF  REPUBLI- 
CANS. —  CONDEMNATION    OF   CERTAIN   SENATORS.  —  SUBSEQUENT   CHANGE   OF 
OPINION.  —  THE   PRESIDENT   UNWISELY  IMPEACHED.  —  ACTUAL  OFFENSES    OF 
THE  PRESIDENT.  —  THEIR  GRAVITY.  —  IMPEACHED  ON  OTHER  GROUNDS.  —  THE 
REAL  TEST.  —  NATURE  OF  AN  IMPEACHABLE  OFFENSE.  —  LAWYERS  DIFFER. — 
EFFECT  ON  MR.  STANTON.  —  His   POLITICAL  ATTITUDE. — His  RESIGNATION. 

—  APPOINTED  SUPREME  JUSTICE.  — His  DEATH.  —  GENERAL  SCHOFIELD  SEC- 
RETARY OF  WAR.— MR.  EVARTS  ATTORNEY-GENERAL 341 


CHAPTER  XV. 

PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  OF  1868.  —  REPUBLICAN  NATIONAL  CONVENTION  AT 
CHICAGO.  —  GENERAL  GRANT  THE  CLEARLY  INDICATED  CANDIDATE  OF  HIS 
PARTY.  —  CONTEST  FOR  THE  VICE-PRESIDENCY.— WADE,  COLFAX,  FENTON, 
WILSON,  CURTIN.  —  SPIRITED  BALLOTING.  —  COLFAX  NOMINATED. — PLATFORM. 
— DEMOCRATIC  NATIONAL  CONVENTION.  —  MEETS  IN  NEW  YORK,  JULY  4. — 
NUMEROUS  CANDIDATES.  —  GEORGE  H.  PENDLETON  MOST  PROMINENT.  —  AN 
ORGANIZED  MOVEMENT  FOR  CHIEF  JUSTICE  CHASE.  — His  ALLIANCE  WITH 
THE  DEMOCRACY.  —  His  EAGERNESS  FOR  THE  NOMINATION.  —  His  FRIENDLY 
RELATIONS  WITH  VALLANDIGHAM.  —  PRESIDENT  JOHNSON.  —  SEEKS  DEMOCRATIC 
INDORSEMENT. — MR.  AUGUST  BELMONT'S  OPENING  SPEECH.  —  HORATIO  SEY- 
MOUR PRESIDENT  OF  THE  CONVENTION.  —  His  ARRAIGNMENT  OF  THE  REPUB- 
LICAN PARTY.  —  CHARACTER  OF  HIS  MIND.  —  THE  DEMOCRATIC  PLATFORM. — 
FAVORS  PAYING  THE  PUBLIC  DEBT  IN  PAPER  MONEY. — DECLARES  THE  RE- 
CONSTRUCTION ACTS  TO  BE  USURPATIONS. — WADE  HAMPTON'S  PROMINENCE. 
— VARIOUS  NAMES  PRESENTED  FOR  THE  PRESIDENCY. — VARYING  FORTUNES 
OF  CANDIDATES.  —  SEYMOUR  NOMINATED.  —  THE  VICE-PRESIDENCY.  —  FRANK 
BLAIR  NOMINATED  BY  ACCLAMATION.  —AGGRESSIVE  CAMPAIGN  ON  BOTH  SIDES. 
MR.  SEYMOUR'S  POPULAR  TOUR.— FINAL  RESULT.  —  GENERAL  GRANT'S  ELEC- 
TION  385 


CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  II.  xi 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

PAGB 

EEPUBLICAN  VICTORY  OF  1868  ANALYZED.  —  MR.  SEYMOUR'S  STRENGTH  UNEXPECT- 
EDLY GREAT.  —  ASTOUNDING  DEFECTION  OF  CERTAIN  STATES.  —  DEMOCRATIC 
VICTORY  IN  NEW  YORK,  NEW  JERSEY,  AND  OREGON.  — EVIL  OMENS. —DEMO- 
CRATIC VICTORY  IN  LOUISIANA.  —  WON  BY  FRAUD  AND  VIOLENCE.  —  THE 
FIGURES  EXAMINED.  —  ACTION  OF  CONGRESS  THEREON. — FRAUD  SUSPECTED  IN 
GEORGIA.  — DEMOCRATIC  DUTY  UNPERFORMED.  —  IMPARTIAL  SUFFRAGE.  — VARI- 
OUS PROPOSITIONS.  —  AMENDMENT  TO  THE  CONSTITUTION. — MR.  HENDERSON 
OF  MISSOURI.  —  MR.  STEWART  OF  NEVADA.  —  MR.  GARRETT  DAVIS.  —  PROCEED- 
INGS IN  THE  HOUSE.— SPEECH  OF  MR.  BOUTWELL.  —  ANSWERED  BY  MR.  BECK 
AND  MR.  ELDRIDGE.  —  PASSAGE  OF  AMENDMENT  BY  HOUSE.  —  ACTION  THEREON 
IN  SENATE.  —  AMENDMENT  OF  MR.  WILSON.  —  PROPOSITION  OF  MR.  MORTON 
AND  MR.  BUCKALEW.  — DISAGREEMENT  OF  THE  Two  BRANCHES.  —  CONFERENCE 
COMMITTEE.  —  FIFTEENTH  AMENDMENT  REPORTED.  —  PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  THE 
UNITED  STATES.  —  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT  NOW  MODIFIED.  —  ITS  EFFECT 
AND  POTENCY  LESSENED.  —  ITS  FAILURE  TO  REMOVE  EVILS.  —  GREAT  VALUE 
OF  THE  THREE  AMENDMENTS.  — THEIR  ASSURED  ENFORCEMENT.  — HONOR  TO 
THEIR  AUTHORS.  —  LESSON  TAUGHT  BY  MR.  LINCOLN.  —  ITS  SIGNIFICANCE.  .  40T 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

INAUGURATION  OF  GENERAL  GRANT  FOR  FIRST  TERM.  —  POPULAR  ENTHUSIASM.  — 
His  INAUGURAL  ADDRESS.  —  APPROVES  FIFTEENTH  AMENDMENT. — ANNOUNCE- 
MENT OF  HIS  CABINET.  —  GENERAL  SURPRISE.  —  E.  B.  WASHBURNE.  —  JACOB 
D.  Cox.  —  E.  ROCKWOOD  HOAR. —  JOHN  A.  J.  CRESWELL'.  —  ALEXANDER  T. 
STEWART.  —  INELIGIBLE.  —  NAME  WITHDRAWN.  —  GEORGE  S.  BOUTWELL  AP- 
POINTED.—  ADOLPH  E.  BORIE.  —  HAMILTON  FISH. — GEORGE  M.  ROBESON. — 
GENERAL  SCHOFIELD.  —  GENERAL  RAWLINS.  —  GENERAL  BELKNAP.  —  GENERAL 
OF  THE  ARMY.  — THE  SUCCESSION.  — SHERMAN  APPOINTED.  — LIEUTENANT-GEN- 
ERAL. —  SHERIDAN  APPOINTED.  —  HALLECK.  —  MEADE.  —  THOMAS.  —  HANCOCK. 

—  CONGRESS    CONVENES.  —  ELECTION   OF    SPEAKER.  —  MR.    ELAINE   CHOSEN. — 
MR.  KERR  THE  DEMOCRATIC  CANDIDATE.  —  VARIOUS  MEMBERS.  —  MR.  WHEELER. 

—  MR.  POTTER.  —  JUDGE  NOAH  DAVIS. — GENERAL    SLOCUM. — MR.  HALE. — 
THOMAS  FITCH.  — THE  PENNSYLVANIA  DELEGATION.  — MR.  S.  S.  Cox.  — MR. 
GEORGE  F.  HOAR.  —  NEW  ERA  POLITICALLY  UNDER  PRESIDENT  GRANT.  —  THE 
OPPOSITION  PARTY  IN  THE  HOUSE.  —  ITS  STRONG  LEADERS. — THEIR  MANLY 
CHARACTER       ....  .422 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

SENATE  IN  THE  FORTY-FIRST  CONGRESS.  —  HANNIBAL  HAMLIN  ELECTED  FOR  THE 
FOURTH  TERM.  — MATTHEW  H.  CARPENTER. —His  DOUBLE  LOAD  OF  WORK.— 
CARL  SCHURZ.  —  ALLEN  G.  THURMAN.— WILLIAM  G.  BROWNLOW.— THOMAS 
FRANCIS  BAYARD.  — GOVERNOR  FENTON. —WILLIAM  A.  BUCKINGHAM.  —  DANIEL 
D.  PRATT. —  JOHN  SCOTT.  —  JOHN  P.  STOCKTON.  —  SOUTHERN  REPRESENTA- 
TION COMPLETE.  —  CHARACTER  OF  SENATORS  AND  REPRESENTATIVES.  —  UNJUST 
ABUSE.  —  SOUTHERN  RESISTANCE  TO  CARPET-BAG  RULE.  —  ADMISSION  OF  A 
COLORED  SENATOR.  —  HIRAM  R.  REVELS  OF  MISSISSIPPI.  —  SUCCESSOR  TO  JEF- 
FERSON DAVIS. —  THE  MORAL  OF  IT.— PRESIDENT  GRANT  AND  THE  TENURE- 

OF-OFFICE  ACT.  —  HOUSE   VOTES   TO   REPEAL    THE  ACT.  —  DELAY  IN    SENATE.  — 

POSITION  OF  MR.  TRUMBULL,  MR.  EDMUNDS  AND  MR.  SCHURZ.  —  DISAGREEMENT 
BETWEEN  SENATE  AND  HOUSE.  —  CONFERENCE  COMMITTEE.  —  PRACTICAL  RE- 
PEAL OF  THE  ACT.  —  DEATH  OF  WILLIAM  PITT  FESSENDEN.  —  His  CHARACTER,  437 


xii  CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  II. 

CHAPTER   XIX. 

PAGE 

EVENTS  OF  INTEREST.  —  IN  DIPLOMACY  AND  RECONSTRUCTION. — THE  DOMINICAN  RE- 
PUBLIC.—  ANNEXATION  TREATY.  —  DEFEATED  BY  SENATE.  —  PRESIDENT  GRANT 
RENEWS  THE  EFFORT.  —  COMMISSION  SENT  TO  SAN  DOMINGO.  —  THEIR  REPORT. — 
OPPOSITION  OF  MR.  SUMNER.  —  THE  PRESIDENT  AND  MR.  SUMNER.  — RECONSTRUC- 
TION MEASURES  COMPLETED.  —VIRGINIA,  MISSISSIPPI  AND  TEXAS.  —  RE-ADMITTED 
TO  REPRESENTATION.  —  PECULIAR  CASE  OF  GEORGIA.  —  HER  RECONSTRUCTION 
POSTPONED.  —  LAST  STATE  RE-ADMITTED  TO  REPRESENTATION.  —  FIFTEENTH 
AMENDMENT.  —  ADOPTED.  —  PROCLAIMED  MARCH  30,  1870.  —  PRESIDENT'S  MES- 
SAGE. —  COURSE  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES.  —  HOSTILITY  TO  RECONSTRUCTED 
GOVERNMENTS. —  DETERMINATION  TO  BREAK  THEM  DOWN.  —  MILITARY  INTER- 
POSITION OF  THE  GOVERNMENT.  —  KU-KLUX-KLANS.  —  VIOLENCE  IN  THE  SOUTH. 

—  LEGISLATION  TO  PREVENT  IT.  —  DIFFICULT  TASK.  —  MOTIVE  INSPIRING  THE 
SOUTH.  —  CARPET-BAG  IMMIGRATION.  —  COTTON-REARING  ORIGINAL  MOTIVE.  — 
POLITICAL  CONSEQUENCE.  —  DISABILITIES  IN  THE  SOUTH.  —  CAUSE  THEREOF.  — 
RESPONSIBILITY  OF  SOUTHERN  STATES.  — ORIGINAL  MISTAKE  OF  THE  SOUTH.— 
THE  AIMS  OF  THE  NORTH     .        .        .       .       •       .       •       •       •       •       •       .458 

CHAPTER  XX. 

RESENTMENT  AGAINST  ENGLAND.  —  POPULAR  FEELING  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.— 
CONDUCT  OF  THE  PALMERSTON  MINISTRY.  — HOSTILE  SPEECHES  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF 
COMMONS.  —  MR.  ROEBUCK. —  LORD  ROBERT  CECIL.  —  CONDUCT  OF  THE  TORIES. 

—  OF  THE  LIBERALS.  —  CRITICISMS  OF  THE  BRITISH  PRESS.  —  SOUTH  COMPARED 
WITH  IRELAND.  —  UNITED    STATES    DEMANDS    COMPENSATION.  —  REFUSED  BY 
ENGLAND.  —  NEGOTIATIONS.  —  JOHNSON-CLARENDON  TREATY.  —  REJECTED   BY 
SENATE.  —  CHARACTER  OF  TREATY.  —  SPEECH  OF  MR.  SUMNER.  —  POSITION  OF 
PRESIDENT  GRANT.  —  NEGOTIATION  CLOSED.  —  ENGLAND  ASKS  THAT  IT  BE  RE- 
OPENED. —  JOINT  HIGH  COMMISSION.  — ITS  DELIBERATIONS.  —  ITS  BASIS  OF  SET- 
TLEMENT. —  GENEVA  AWARD. —  THE  THREE  RULES.  —  ENGLAND'S  COURSE  IN 
REGARD  THERETO.  —  PRIVATE  CLAIMS  ADJUSTED.  —  THE  SAN  JUAN  QUESTION. — 

ITS  FINAL  SETTLEMENT.  —  HON.  GEORGE  BANCROFT 476 

CHAPTER   XXI. 

OPENING  FORTY-SECOND  CONGRESS.  —DEPOSITION  OF  CHARLES  SUMNER  FROM  CHAIR- 
MANSHIP OF  FOREIGN  RELATIONS.  —  EXCITING  DEBATE. — GRAVE  INJUSTICE  TO 
MR.  SUMNER.  —  DEMOCRATIC  SENATORS  OPPOSE  THE  ACT.  —  NEW  SENATORS.  — 
MATT  W.  RANSOM.  —  FRANK  P.  BLAIR,  JUN.  — HENRY  G.  DAVIS.  —  Po WELL 
CLAYTON.  —  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  HOUSE.  —  MR.  BLAINE  RE-ELECTED  SPEAKER. 

—  DEMOCRATS  CONTROL  MORE  THAN  ONE-THIRD  OF  HOUSE.  —  VALUABLE  AC- 
CESSIONS TO  MEMBERSHIP.  —  POLITICAL  DISABILITIES.  —  REMOVED  FROM  INDI- 
VIDUALS. —  GENERAL  AMNESTY  PROPOSED.  —  CIVIL-RIGHTS  BILL.  —  COURSE  OF 
COLORED  MEMBERS  OF  THE  HOUSE.  —  THEIR  JUSTICE  AND  MAGNANIMITY  .       .    503 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  OF  1872.  —  LIBERAL  REPUBLICAN  MOVEMENT.  —  ITS  ORIGIN. 

—  DIVISION  IN  MISSOURI.  —  GRATZ  BROWN,  BLAIR,  SCHURZ.  —  CONTEST  IN  NEW 
YORK.  —  GREELEY,    FENTON,    CONKLING.  —  CONKLING'S   TRIUMPH. — LIBERAL 
REPUBLICAN  CONVENTION.  —  MEETS  AT  CINCINNATI.  —  NOMINATION  OF   MR. 
GREELEY.  —  ADJUSTMENT  OF  TARIFF  ISSUES.  —  CHAGRIN  OF  FREE-TRADERS  AND 
DEMOCRATS. — MR.  GREELEY'S  LETTER  OF  ACCEPTANCE.  —  NATIONAL  REPUB- 
LICAN  CONVENTION.  —  MEETS   IN    PHILADELPHIA.  —  RENOMINATES    GENERAL 
GRANT.  —  HENRY  WILSON   NOMINATED  FOR  VICE-PRESIDENT.  —  DEMOCRATIC 


CONTEXTS  OF  VOLUME  II.  xiii 

PAGE 

NATIONAL  CONVENTION.  —  MEETS  IN  BALTIMORE.  —  ENDORSES  GREELEY  AND 
BROWN. —ACCEPTS  THE  CINCINNATI  PLATFORM.  —  MR.  GREELEY'S  LETTER  OP 
ACCEPTANCE.  —  CONTEST  BETWEEN  GRANT  AND  GREELEY.  —  CHARACTER  OF  MR. 
GREELEY.  — His  STRENGTH  AND  HIS  WEAKNESS.  — NORTH  CAROLINA  ELECTION. 

—  CLAIMED  BY  BOTH  SIDES.  — FAVORABLE  TO  REPUBLICANS.  —  SEPTEMBER  ELEC- 
TIONS.—REPUBLICAN  GAINS.  —  NOMINATION  OF  O'CONNOR  AND  ADAMS.  — MR. 
GREELEY'S  WESTERN  TOUR.  —  OCTOBER  ELECTIONS.  —  STRONG  NOMINATIONS 
FOR  STATE  OFFICERS.  —  ENORMOUS  MAJORITIES  FOR  GENERAL  GRANT.  —  His 
OVERWHELMING  ELECTION.  —  DEATH  OF  MR.  GREELEY 516 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

PRESIDENT  GRANT'S  SECOND  INAUGURATION.  —  COMPLAINS  OF  PARTISAN  ABUSE.— 
ORGANIZATION  OF  FORTY-THIRD  CONGRESS.  —  PROMINENT  MEMBERS  OF  SENATB 
AND  HOUSE.  —  DEATH  OF  CHARLES  SUMNER.  —  IMPRESSIVE  FUNERAL  CEREMO- 
NIES. —  SINGULAR  REMINISCENCE  BY  MR.  DAWES.  —  SPEECH  BY  MR.  LAMAB. 

—  CAREER  OF   ALEXANDER   H.  STEPHENS.  —  GOVERNMENT   OF   DISTRICT    OF 
COLUMBIA.  —  RADICAL    CHANGE.  —  GREAT    IMPROVEMENT.  —  ALEXANDER    R. 
SHEPHERD.  —  REPUBLICAN  REVERSE,  1874.  —  DEMOCRATIC  HOUSE   OF  REPRE- 
SENTATIVES. —  MICHAEL    C.    KERR,    SPEAKER.  —  MEMBERS   OF    SENATE   AND 
HOUSE.  —  RADICAL    CHANGES.  —  ANDREW   JOHNSON   IN    THE    SENATE.  —  His 
SPEECH.  —  DIES  AT  HIS  HOME  IN  TENNESSEE.  —  CONDITION  OF  THE  SOUTH.  — 
AMNESTY.  —  AMENDMENT  TO  EXCEPT  JEFFERSON  DAVIS.  — BILL  DEFEATED       .    537 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

THE  PUBLIC  CREDIT.  —  FIRST  LAW  ENACTED  UNDER  PRESIDENT  GRANT.  — DEMO- 
CRATIC OPPOSITION.  —  THURMAN,  GARRETT  DAVIS,  BAYARD.  —  PRESIDENT 
GRANT'S  FIRST  MESSAGE.  —  FUNDING  BILLS  DISCUSSED. — ACTION  OF  BOTH 
HOUSES.  —  DEBATES.  —  FURTHER  REDUCTION  OF  REVENUE.  —  PREMIUM  oir 
GOLD.  —  MEETING  OF  FORTY-SECOND  CONGRESS.  —  FINANCIAL  DEBATES.  — 
FINANCIAL  PANIC  OF  1873.  —  FORTY-THIRD  CONGRESS  MEETS.  —  PRESIDENT 
GRANT'S  POSITION.  — ABOLITION  OF  MOIETIES.  —  SPECIE  PAYMENTS.— RESUMP- 
TION ACT.  —  SPECIAL  MESSAGE  OF  THE  PRESIDENT.  —  ADMISSION  OF  COLORADO. 

—  DEATH  OF  SPEAKER  KERR.  —  SAMUEL  J.  RANDALL  HIS  SUCCESSOR         .       .    556 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  OF  1876.  — REPUBLICAN  CANDIDATES  FOR  NOMINATION.— 
CONVENTION  AT  CINCINNATI,  JUNE  14,  1876. —REPUBLICAN  PLATFORM.  —  BAL- 
LOTING. —  NOMINATION  OF  HAYES  AND  WHEELER.  —  DEMOCRATIC  NATIONAL 
CONVENTION.  —  SAMUEL  J.  TILDEN  THE  PRINCIPAL  CANDIDATE.  —  His  CAREER. 

—  OTHER  DEMOCRATIC  CANDIDATES.  —  TILDEN  AND  HENDRICKS  NOMINATED.  — 
DEMOCRATIC  PLATFORM. — THE  CANVASS.  —  THE  RESULT. — DOUBTFUL  STATES. 

—  POPULAR  EXCITEMENT.  — DISPUTE  IN  LOUISIANA,  FLORIDA,  SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

—  PRESIDENT   GRANT'S    COURSE.  —  A    PORTENTOUS    QUESTION.  —  ELECTORAL 
COMMISSION.  —  MEMBERS.  —  QUESTIONS   BEFORE   THEM.  —  DECISION.  —  HAYES 
AND  WHEELER  ELECTED.  —  SUBSEQUENT  INVESTIGATION.  —  POTTER  COMMITTEE. 

—  DISCOVERY  OF  TELEGRAMS.  —  ATTEMPTS  AT  BRIBERY  IN  THE  SOUTH     .       .    567 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 

INAUGURATION  OF  PRESIDENT  HAYES. —  His  SOUTHERN  POLICY.  —  APPOINTMENT 
OF  HIS  CABINET.  —  ORGANIZATION  OF  SENATE  AND  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

—  RE-ELECTION  OF   SPEAKER  RANDALL.  —  SILVER  DISCUSSION.  —  COINAGE  OF 


xiv  CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  II. 

PAGB 

SILVER  DOLLAR. — REPORT  OF  SILVER  COMMISSION.  —  DISCUSSION  ON  SILVER 
QUESTION.  —  PRODUCT  OF  SILVER  AND  GOLD.  —  THIRTY-TWO  YEARS  OF  EACH. 

—  NAVIGATION  INTERESTS.  —  Loss  OF  GROUND  BY  THE  UNITED  STATES.  —  REA- 
SON THEREFOR.  —  How  CAN  IT  BE  REGAINED  ?.       .       .       »;      .       .      v       •    595 

CHAPTER  XXVIL 

THE  QUESTION  OF  THE  FISHERIES.  —  ORIGIN  OF  AMERICAN  RIGHTS. — EARLY  DIS- 
PUTES.—  TREATY  OF  1782.  —  TREATY  OF  GHENT.  —  TREATY  OF  1818.  —  RECI- 
PROCITY TREATY.  —  JOINT  HIGH  COMMISSION.  —  FISHERIES  QUESTION  TO  BE 
ARBITRATED.  —  SELECTION  OF  ARBITRATORS.  — NEGOTIATION  FOR  RECIPROCITY 
TREATY. —  THE  HALIFAX  AWARD.  —  ITS  LARGE  AMOUNT. —DISSATISFACTION. 

—  ACTION  OF  SENATE.  —  CORRESPONDENCE  WITH  THE  BRITISH  GOVERNMENT.  — 

MR.   EVARTS  AND  LORD   SALISBURY .          .  .615 

CHAPTER  XXVIIL 

FORTY-SIXTH  CONGRESS.  — EXTRA  SESSIONS.  —  ORGANIZATION  OF  HOUSE.  —  OF  SEN- 
ATE. —  LEADING  MEN  IN  EACH.  —  DEMOCRATIC  GAIN  IN  INFLUENCE.  —  CONTROL 
OF  BOTH  SENATE  AND  HOUSE.  —  DEATH  OF  SENATOR  CHANDLER. — QUESTION 
OF  CIVIL  SERVICE  REFORM.  —  THE  PATRONAGE  OF  THE  GOVERNMENT.  —  ITS 
ILLEGITIMATE  INFLUENCE. — THE  QUESTION  OF  CHINESE  LABOR. — LEGISLA- 
TION THEREON  .  .  .  .... ,  .  .  .  .  »  ,  ,  .  .  .  .  .  ,  638 

CHAPTER  XXIX. 

PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  OF  1880.  —  THIRD  TERM  SUGGESTED.  —  CHICAGO  CONVEN- 
TION.—  EXCITING  CONTEST. — MANY  BALLOTINGS. — NOMINATION  OF  GENERAL 
GARFIELD.  —  DEMOCRATIC  CONVENTION.  —  NOMINATION  OF  GENERAL  HANCOCK. 

—  THE  CONTEST.  —  THE  RESULT.  —  THE  SOLID  SOUTH.  —  ITS  MEANING.  —  ITS 
EFFECT.  —  ITS  END.  —  REVIEW  OF  THE  TWENTY  YEARS.  —  PROGRESS  OF  THE 
PEOPLE.— MAJESTY  OF  THE  REPUBLIC  ....  .657 


LIST  OF  STEEL  PORTRAITS. 


ULYSSES  S.  GRANT 

ANDREW  JOHNSON 
HANNIBAL  HAMLIN 
SCHUYLER  COLFAX 
HENRY  WILSON 
WILLIAM  A.  WHEELER 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHEBTS 
SAMUEL  J.  RANDALL 
Lucius  Q.  C.  LAMAB 
THOMAS  F.  BAYARD 
BENJAMIN  H.  HILL 
AUGUSTUS  H.  GARLAND 
JAMES  B.  BECK 

B.  K.  BRUCE 
H.  R.  REVELS 
JAMES  T.  RAPIEB 
JOHN  R.  LYNCH 
J.  H.  RAINEY 
ALLEN  G.  THURMAN 
TIMOTHY  O.  HOWE 
BENJAMIN  F.  BUTLER 

ROSCOE   CONKLING 

GEORGE  F.  EDMUNDS 
MATTHEW  HALE  CARPENTER 
WILLIAM  A.  BUCKINGHAM 
RUTHERFORD  B.  HAYES 
JAMES  A.  GARFIELD   . 


PAGE 

Frontispiece. 


64 


128 


304 


440 


600 
672 


TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 


CHAPTER    I. 

ANDREW  JOHNSON  INSTALLED  AS  PRESIDENT.  —  CABINET  AND  SENATORS  WITNESSES  TO 
THE  CEREMONY.  — RESPONSIBILITIES  OF  THE  NEW  PRESIDENT  DELICATE  IN  CHAR- 
ACTER. —  REQUIRING  THE  HIGHEST  ORDER  OF  STATESMANSHIP.  —  THE  QUESTION  OF 
RECONSTRUCTION.  —  ITS  PECULIAR  DIFFICULTIES.  —  NEW  AND  PERPLEXING  QUES- 
TIONS. —  CHARACTER  AND  CAREER  OF  MR.  JOHNSON.  —  BORN  IN  NORTH  CAROLINA. 

—  MIGRATES  TO  TENNESSEE.  —  His  RAPID  PROMOTION  IN  THAT  STATE.  —  A  TAILOR 
BY  TRADE.  —  WITHOUT  EDUCATION.  —  TAUGHT  TO  READ  AT  FIFTEEN.  —  MAYOR  OF 
TOWN  AT  TWENTY-TWO.  —  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE  AT  TWENTY-SEVEN.  —  PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTOR  IN  1840  AT  THIRTY-TWO.  —  IN  CONGRESS  AT  THIRTY-FIVE.  —  GOVERNOR- 
FROM  1853  TO  1857.  —  UNITED-STATES  SENATOR  IN  1857.  —  His  SERVICE  IN  CON- 
GRESS.—His  HOMESTEAD   POLICY.  —  NECESSARY  ANTAGONISM  WITH    SLAVERY.— 
His  IDEAL  OF  A  RURAL  POPULATION.  —  BOLDNESS  OF  HIS  POLITICAL  COURSE  inr 
TENNESSEE.  —  His  LOYALTY  TO  THE  UNION. —  SEPARATES  FROM  THE  DEMOCRATIC 
CONSPIRATORS.  —  His  CAREER  IN  THE  CIVIL  WAR.  —  APPOINTED  MILITARY  GOV- 
ERNOR  OF   TENNESSEE.  —  His    ABLE   ADMINISTRATION   OF   THE   OFFICE.  —  FORE- 
SHADOWS  A  SEVERE   POLICY  AS  PRESIDENT.  —  CONTRAST  WITH  MR.  LINCOLN.  — 
ANALYSIS  OF  JOHNSON'S  POSITION.  —  His  BRIEF  INAUGURAL  ADDRESS.  —  EFFECT 

PRODUCED  BY  IT.  —  HlS  ADDRESS  TO  AN    ILLINOIS    DELEGATION.  —  SIGNIFICANT    IN- 
DICATION OF  A  HARSH  POLICY  TOWARDS  THE  REBELS. — PRESTON  KING'S  INFLUENCE. 

—  PRESIDENT'S  ADDRESS  TO  CHRISTIAN  COMMISSION.  —  To  LOYAL  SOUTHERNERS.— 
To  A  PENNSYLVANIA  DELEGATION.  —  PRESIDENT'S  TONE  GROWS  STERNER  TOWARDS 
"TRAITORS."  —  STRIKING  CONVERSATION  WITH  SENATOR  WADE. — FUNERAL  CERE- 
MONIES OF  THE  LATE  PRESIDENT.  —  REMAINS  CARRIED  TO  ILLINOIS.  — IMPRESSIVE 
SCENE  IN  BALTIMORE.  —  IN   PHILADELPHIA.  —  BODY   REPOSES   IN   INDEPENDENCE 
HALL.  —  CONTRAST   WITH   FOUR   YEARS    BEFORE.  —  UNPARALLELED   DISPLAY   OF 
FEELING  IN  NEW  YORK.  —  ORATION  BY  GEORGE  BANCROFT.  —  ELEGIAC  ODE  BY 
WILLIAM  CULLEN  BRYANT.  —  INTERMENT  IN  ILLINOIS.  —  CEREMONIES   COMPARED 

WITH  THOSE  OF  ROYALTY.  —  PROFOUND  FEELING  THROUGHOUT  THE  COUNTRY.— 

PUBLIC  MANIFESTATION  OF  MOURNING. 

A  BRAHAM  LINCOLN  expired  at  twenty-two  minutes  after 
-LJL  seven  o'clock  on  the  morning  of  April  15, 1865.  Three  hours 
laler,  in  the  presence  of  all  the  members  of  the  Cabinet  except  Mr. 
Seward  who  lay  wounded  and  bleeding  in  his  own  home,  the  oath 
of  office,  as  President  of  the  United  States,  was  administered  to 
Andrew  Johnson  by  Chief  Justice  Chase.  The  simple  but  impres- 
VOL.  II.  l  i 


2  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

sive  ceremony  was  performed  in  Mr.  Johnson's  lodgings  at  the  Kirk- 
wood  Hotel ;  and  besides  the  members  of  the  Cabinet,  who  were 
present  in  their  official  character,  those  senators  who  had  remained 
in  Washington  since  the  adjournment  of  Congress  were  called  in  as 
witnesses.  While  the  death  of  Mr.  Lincoln  was  still  unknown  to  the 
majority  of  the  citizens  of  the  Republic,  his  successor  was  installed 
in  office,  and  the  administration  of  the  Federal  Government  was  radi- 
cally changed.  It  was  especially  fortunate  that  the  Vice-President 
was  at  the  National  Capital.  He  had  arrived  but  five  days  before, 
and  was  intending  to  leave  for  his  home  in  Tennessee  within  a  few 
hours.  His  prompt  investiture  with  the  Chief  Executive  authority 
of  the  Nation  preserved  order,  maintained  law,  and  restored  confi- 
dence to  the  people.  With  the  defeat  and  disintegration  of  the 
armies  of  the  Confederacy,  and  with  the  approaching  disbandment 
of  the  armies  of  the  Union,  constant  watchfulness  was  demanded  of 
the  National  Executive.  It  is  a  striking  tribute  to  the  strength  of  the 
Constitution  and  of  the  Government  that  the  orderly  administration 
of  affairs  was  not  interrupted  by  a  tragedy  which  in  many  countries 
might  have  been  the  signal  for  a  bloody  revolution. 

The  new  President  confronted  grave  responsibilities.  The  least 
reflecting  among  those  who  took  part  in  the  mighty  struggle  per- 
ceived that  the  duties  devolved  upon  the  Government  by  victory  — 
if  less  exacting  and  less  critical  than  those  imposed  by  actual  war  — 
were  more  delicate  in  their  nature,  and  required  statesmanship  of  a 
different  character.  The  problem  of  reconstructing  the  Union,  and 
adapting  its  varied  interests  to  its  changed  condition,  demanded 
the  highest  administrative  ability.  Many  of  the  questions  involved 
were  new,  and,  if  only  for  that  reason,  perplexing.  No  experience 
of  our  own  had  established  precedents;  none  in  other  countries 
afforded  even  close  analogies.  Rebellions  and  civil  wars  had,  it  is 
true,  been  frequent,  but  they  had  been  chiefly  among  peoples  con- 
solidated under  one  government,  ruled  in  all  their  affairs,  domestic 
and  external,  by  one  central  power.  The  overthrow  of 'armed  resist- 
ance in  such  cases  was  the  end  of  trouble,  and  political  society  and 
public  order  were  rapidly  re-formed  under  the  restraint  which  the 
triumphant  authority  was  so  easily  able  to  impose. 

A  prompt  adjustment  after  the  manner  of  consolidated  govern- 
ments was  not  practicable  under  our  Federal  system.  In  the  divis- 
ion of  functions  between  the  Nation  and  the  State,  those  that  reach 
and  affect  the  citizen  in  his  every-day  life  belong  principally  to  the 


CHARACTER  AND  CAREER  OF  ANDREW  JOHNSON. 

State.  The  tenure  of  land  is  guarantied  and  regulated  by  State 
Law ;  the  domestic  relations  of  husband  and  wife,  parent  and  child, 
guardian  and  ward,  together  with  the  entire  educational  system,  are 
left  exclusively  to  the  same  authority,  as  is  also  the  preservation  of 
the  public  peace  by  proper  police-systems  —  the  National  Govern- 
ment intervening  only  on  the  call  of  the  State  when  the  State's 
power  is  found  inadequate  to  the  suppression  of  disorder.  These 
leading  functions  of  the  State  were  left  in  full  force  under  the  Con- 
federate Government ;  and  the  Confederate  Government  being  now 
destroyed,  and  the  States  that  composed  it  being  under  the  complete 
domination  of  the  armies  of  the  Union,  the  wjiole  framework  of 
society  was  in  confusion,  if  not  indeed  in  chaos.  To  restore  the 
States  to  their  normal  relations  to  the  Union,  to  enable  them  to 
organize  governments  in  harmony  with  the  fundamental  changes 
wrought  by  the  war,  was  the  embarrassing  task  which  the  Admin- 
istration of  President  Johnson  was  compelled  to  meet  on  the  very 
threshold  of  its  existence. 

The  successful  issue  of  these  unprecedented  and  complicated  dif- 
ficulties depended  in  great  degree  upon  the  character  and  temper  of 
the  Executive.  Many  wise  men  regarded  it  as  a  fortunate  circum- 
stance that  Mr.  Lincoln's  successor  was  from  the  South,  though  a 
much  larger  number  in  the  North  found  in  this  fact  a  source  of 
disquietude.  Mr.  Johnson  had  the  manifest  disadvantage  of  not  pos- 
sessing any  close  or  intimate  knowledge  of  the  people  of  the  Loyal 
States.  It  was  feared  moreover,  that  his  relations  with  the  ruling 
spirits  of  the  South  in  the  exciting  period  preceding  the  war  specially 
unfitted  him  for  harmonious  co-operation  with  them  in  the  pending 
exigencies. 

The  character  and  career  of  Mr.  Johnson  were  anomalous  and  in 
many  respects  contradictory.  By  birth  he  belonged  to  that  large 
class  in  the  South  known  as  "  poor  whites,"  —  a  class  scarcely  less 
despised  by  the  slave-holding  aristocracy  than  were  the  human  chat- 
tels themselves.  Born  in  North  Carolina,  and  bred  to  the  trade  of  a 
tailor,  he  reached  his  fifteenth  year  before  he  was  taught  even  to 
read.  In  his  eighteenth  year  he  migrated  to  Tennessee,  and  estab- 
lished himself  in  that  rich  upland  region  on  the  eastern  border  of  the 
State,  where  by  altitude  the  same  agricultural  conditions  are  devel- 
oped that  characterize  the  land  which  lies  several  degrees  farther 
North.  Specially  adapted  to  the  cereals,  the  grasses,  and  the  fruits 
of  Southern  Pennsylvania  and  Ohio,  East  Tennessee  could  not  em- 


4  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

ploy  slave-labor  with  the  profit  which  it  brought  in  the  rich  cotton- 
fields  of  the  neighboring  lowlands,  and  the  result  was  that  the 
population  contained  a  large  majority  of  whites. 

Owing  much  to  a  wise  marriage,  pursuing  his  trade  with  skill 
and  industry,  Johnson  gained  steadily  in  knowledge  and  in  influence. 
Ambitious,  quick  to  learn,  honest,  necessarily  frugal,  he  speedily  be- 
came a  recognized  leader  of  the  class  to  which  he  belonged.  Before 
he  had  attained  his  majority  he  was  chosen  to  an  important  munici- 
pal office,  and  at  twenty-two  he  was  elected  mayor  of  his  town. 
Thenceforward  his  promotion  was  rapid.  At  twenty-seven  he  was 
sent  to  the  Legislature  of  his  State;  and  in  1840,  when  he  was  in 
his  thirty-second  year,  he  was  nominated  for  the  office  of  Presidential 
elector  and  canvassed  the  State  in  the  interest  of  Mr.  Van  Buren. 
Three  years  later  he  was  chosen  representative  in  Congress  where  he 
served  ten  years.  He  was  then  nominated  for  governor,  and  in  the 
elections  of  1853  and  1855  defeated  successively  two  of  the  most 
popular  Whigs  in  Tennessee,  Gustavus  A.  Henry  and  Meredith  P. 
Gentry.  In  1857  he  was  promoted  to  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  where  he  was  serving  at  the  outbreak  of  the  civil  war. 

While  Mr.  Johnson  had  been  during  his  entire  political  life  a 
member  of  the  Democratic  party,  and  had  attained  complete  control 
in  his  State,  the  Southern  leaders  always  distrusted  him.  Though 
allied  to  the  interests  of  slavery  and  necessarily  drawn  to  its  de- 
fense, his  instincts,  his  prejudices,  his  convictions  were  singularly 
strong  on  the  side  of  the  free  people.  His  sympathies  with  the 
poor  were  acute  and  demonstrative  —  leading  him  to  the  advocacy 
of  measures  which  in  a  wide  and  significant  sense  were  hostile  to 
slavery.  In  the  early  part  of  his  career  as  a  representative  in 
Congress,  he  warmly  espoused,  if  indeed  he  did  not  originate,  the 
homestead  policy. '  In  support  of  that  policy  he  followed  a  line  of 
argument  and  illustration  absolutely  and  irreconcilably  antagonistic 
to  the  interests  of  the  slave  system  as  those  interests  were  understood 
by  the  mass  of  Southern  Democratic  leaders. 

The  bestowment  of  our  public  domain  in  quarter-sections  (a  hun- 
dred and  sixty  acres  of  land)  upon  the  actual  settler,  on  the  simple 
condition  that  he  should  cultivate  it  and  improve  it  as  his  home,  was 
a  more  effective  blow  against  the  spread  of  slavery  in  the  Territories 
than  any  number  of  legal  restrictions  or  prfoisos  of  the  kind  pro- 
posed by  Mr.  Wilmot.  Slavery  could  not  be  established  with  success 
except  upon  the  condition  of  large  tracts  of  land  for  the  master,  and 


JOHNSON  AND  THE  HOMESTEAD  POLICY.  5 

the  exclusion  of  the  small  farmer  from  contact  and  from  competition. 
The  example  of  the  latter's  manual  industry  and  his  consequent 
thrift  and  prosperity,  must  ultimately  prove  fatal  to  the  entire  slave 
system.  It  may  not  have  been  Mr.  Johnson's  design  to  injure  the 
institution  of  slavery  by  the  advocacy  of  the  homestead  policy ;  but 
such  advocacy  was  nevertheless  hostile,  and  this  consideration  did 
not  stay  his  hand  or  change  his  action. 

Mr.  Johnson's  mode  of  urging  and  defending  the  homestead 
policy  was  at  all  times  offensive  to  the  mass  of  his  Democratic 
associates  of  the  South,  many  of  whom  against  their  wishes  were 
compelled  to  support  the  measure  on  its  final  passage,  for  fear  of 
giving  offense  to  their  landless  white  constituents,  and  in  the  still 
more  pressing  fear,  that  if  Johnson  should  be  allowed  to  stand  alone 
in  upholding  the  measure,  he  would  acquire  a  dangerous  ascendency 
over  that  large  element  in  the  Southern  population.  Johnson  spoke 
with  ill-disguised  hatred  of  uan  inflated  and  heartless  landed  aris- 
tocracy," not  applying  the  phrase  especially  to  the  South,  but  making 
an  argument  which  tended  to  sow  dissension  in  that  section.  He 
declared  that  "the  withholding  of  the  use  of  the  soil  from  the  actual 
cultivator  is  violative  of  the  principles  essential  to  human  existence," 
and  that  when  "the  violation  reaches  that  point  where  it  can  no 
longer  be  borne,  revolution  begins."  His  argument  startlingly  out- 
lined a  condition  such  as  has  long  existed  in  Ireland,  and  applied  it 
with  suggestive  force  to  the  possible  fate  of  the  South. 

He  then  sketched  his  own  ideal  of  a  rural  population,  an  ideal 
obviously  based  on  free  labor  and  free  institutions.  "You  make 
the  settler  on  the  domain,"  said  he,  "  a  better  citizen  of  the  commu- 
nity. He  becomes  better  qualified  to  discharge  the  duties  of  a  free- 
man. He  is,  in  fact,  the  representative  of  his  own  homestead,  and 
is  a  man  in  the  enlarged  and  proper  sense  of  the  term.  He  comes 
to  the  ballot-box  and  votes  without  the  fear  or  the  restraint  of  some 
landlord.  After  the  hurry  and  bustle  of  election  day  are  over,  he 
mounts  his  own  horse,  returns  to  his  own  domicil,  goes  to  his  own 
barn,  feeds  his  own  stock.  His  wife  turns  out  and  milks  their  own 
cows,  churns  their  own  butter ;  and  when  the  rural  repast  is  ready, 
he  and  his  wife  and  their  children  sit  down  at  the  same  table 
together  to  enjoy  the  sweet  product  of  their  own  hands,  with  hearts 
thankful  to  God  for  having  cast  their  lots  in  this  country  where  the 
land  is  made  free  under  the  protecting  and  fostering  care  of  a  benefi- 
cent Government." 


6  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

The  picture  thus  presented  by  Johnson  was  not  the  picture  of  a 
home  in  the  slave  States,  and  no  one  knew  better  than  he  that  it 
was  a  home  which  could  not  be  developed  and  established  amid 
the  surroundings  and  the  influences  of  slavery.  It  was  a  home  in  the 
North-West,  and  not  in  the  South-West.  Proceeding  in  his  speech, 
Johnson  became  still  more  warmly  enamored  of  his  hero  on  the 
homestead,  and  with  a  tongue  that  seemed  touched  with  the  gift 
of  prophecy  he  painted  him  in  the  possible  career  of  a  not  distant 
future.  "  It  has  long  been  near  my  heart,"  said  he  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  in  July,  1850,  "to  see  every  man  in  the  United 
States  domiciled.  Once  accomplished,  it  would  create  the  strongest 
tie  between  the  citizen  and  the  Government :  what  a  great  incentive 
it  would  afford  to  the  citizen  to  obey  every  call  of  duty !  At  the 
first  summons  of  the  note  of  war  you  would  find  him  leaving  his 
plow  in  the  half-finished  furrow,  taking  his  only  horse  and  convert- 
ing him  into  a  war-steed:  his  scythe  and  sickle  would  be  thrown 
aside,  and  with  a  heart  full  of  valor  and  patriotism  he  would  rush 
with  alacrity  to  the  standard  of  his  country." 

Such  appeals  for  popular  support  subjected  Johnson  to  the  im- 
putation of  demagogism,  and  earned  for  him  the  growing  hatred  of 
that  dangerous  class  of  men  in  the  South  who  placed  the  safety 
of  the  institution  of  slavery  above  the  interest  and  the  welfare  of 
the  white  laborer.  But  if  he  was  a  demagogue,  he  was  always  a 
brave  one.  In  his  early  political  life,  when  the  mere  nod  of  Presi- 
dent Jackson  was  an  edict  in  Tennessee,  Johnson  did  not  hesitate  to 
espouse  the  cause  of  Hugh  L.  White  when  he  was  a  candidate  for  the 
Presidency  in  1836,  nor  did  he  fear  to  ally  himself  with  John  Bell 
in  the  famous  controversy  with  Jackson's  prot£g£,  James  K.  Polk,  in 
the  fierce  political  struggle  of  1834-5.  Though  he  returned  to  the 
ranks  of  the  regular  Democracy  in  the  contest  between  Harrison  and 
Van  Buren,  he  was  bold  enough  in  1842  to  propose  in  the  Legisla- 
ture of  Tennessee  that  the  apportionment  of  political  power  should 
be  made  upon  the  basis  of  the  white  population  of  the  State.  He 
saw  and  keenly  felt  that  a  few  white  men  in  the  cotton  section  of 
the  State,  owning  many  slaves,  were  usurping  the  power  and  tramp- 
ling upon  the  rights  of  his  own  constituency,  among  whom  slaves 
were  few  in  number  and  white  men  numerous.  Those  who  are 
familiar  with  the  savage  intolerance  which  prevailed  among  the 
slave-holders  can  justly  measure  the  degree  of  moral  and  physical 
courage  required  in  any  man  who  would  assail  their  power  at  a  vital 


PRESIDENT  JOHNSON'S  STEADY  LOYALTY.  7 

point  in  the  framework  of  a  government  specially  and  skillfully 
devised  for  their  protection. 

In  all  the  threats  of  disunion,  in  all  the  plotting  and  planning  for 
secession  which  absorbed  Southern  thought  and  action  between  the 
years  1854  and  1861,  Mr.  Johnson  took  no  part.  He  had  been  absent 
from  Congress  during  the  exciting  period  when  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise was  overthrown ;  and  though,  after  his  return  in  1857,  he 
co-operated  generally  in  the  measures  deemed  essential  for  Southern 
interests,  he  steadily  declared  that  a  consistent  adherence  to  the 
Constitution  was  the  one  and  the  only  remedy  for  all  the  alleged 
grievances  of  the  slave-holders.  It  was  natural  therefore,  that  when 
the  decisive  hour  came,  and  the  rash  men  of  the  South  determined 
to  break  up  the  Government,  Johnson  should  stand  firmly  by  the 
Union. 

Of  the  twenty-two  senators  from  the  eleven  States  that  afterwards 
composed  the  Confederacy,  Johnson  was  the  only  one  who  honorably 
maintained  his  oath  to  support  the  Constitution ;  the  only  one  who 
did  not  lend  aid  and  comfort  to  the  enemies  of  the  Union.  He 
remained  in  his  seat  in  the  Senate,  loyal  to  the  Government,  and 
resigned  a  year  after  the  outbreak  of  the  war  (in  March,  1862),  upon 
Mr.  Lincoln's  urgent  request  that  he  should  accept  the  important 
post  of  Military  Governor  of  Tennessee.  His  administration  of  that 
office  and  his  firm  discharge  of  every  duty  under  circumstances  of 
great  exigency  and  oftentimes  of  great  peril,  gave  to  him  an  excep- 
tional popularity  in  all  the  Loyal  States,  and  led  to  his  selection  for 
the  Vice-Presidency  in  1864.  The  national  calamity  had  now  sud- 
denly brought  him  to  a  larger  field  of  duty,  and  devolved  upon  him 
the  weightiest  responsibility. 

The  assassination  of  Mr.  Lincoln  naturally  produced  a  wide- 
spread depression  and  dread  of  evil.  His  position  had  been  one  of 
exceptional  strength  with  the  people.  By  his  four  years  of  consid- 
erate and  successful  administration,  by  his  patient  and  positive  trust 
in  the  ultimate  triumph  of  the  Union  —  realized  at  last  as  he  stood 
on  the  edge  of  the  grave — he  had  acquired  so  complete  an  ascen- 
dency over  the  public  mind  in  the  Loyal  States  that  any  policy 
matured  and  announced  by  him  would  have  been  accepted  by  a 
vast  majority  of  his  countrymen.  But  the  same  degree  of  faith 
could  not  attach  to  Mr.  Johnson ;  although  after  the  first  shock  of 
the  assassination  had  subsided,  there  was  a  generous  revival  of  trust, 
or  at  least  of  hope,  that  the  great  work  which  had  been  so  faithfully 


8  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

prosecuted  for  four  years  would  be  faithfully  carried  forward  in  the 
same  lofty  spirit  to  the  same  noble  ends.  The  people  of  the  North 
waited  with  favorable  disposition  and  yet  with  balancing  judgment 
and  in  exacting  mood.  They  had  enjoyed  abundant  opportunity  to 
acquaint  themselves  with  the  principles  and  the  opinions  of  the  new 
President,  and  confidence  in  his  future  policy  was  not  unaccom- 
panied by  a  sense  of  uncertainty  and  indeed  by  an  almost  painful 
suspense  as  to  his  mode  of  solving  the  great  problems  before  him. 
As  has  been  already  indicated,  the  more  radical  Republicans  of  the 
North  feared  that  his  birth  and  rearing  as  a  Southern  man  and  his 
long  identification  with  the  supporters  of  the  slave  system  might 
blind  him  to  the  most  sacred  duties  of  philanthropy,  while  the  more 
conservative  but  not  less  loyal  or  less  humane  feared  that  from  the 
personal  antagonisms  of  his  own  stormy  career  he  might  be  disposed 
to  deal  too  harshly  with  the  leaders  of  the  conquered  rebellion.  *  The 
few  words  which  Mr.  Johnson  had  addressed  to  those  present  when 
he  took  the  oath  of  office  were  closely  scanned  and  carefully  analyzed 
by  the  country,  even  in  the  stunning  grief  which  Mr.  Lincoln's  death 
had  precipitated.  It  was  especially  noticed  that  he  refrained  from 
declaring  that  he  should  continue  the  policy  of  his  predecessor.  By 
those  who  knew  Mr.  Johnson's  views  intimately,  the  omission  was 
understood  to  imply  that  Mr.  Lincoln  had  intended  to  pursue  a 
more  liberal  and  more  generous  policy  with  the  rebels  than  his  suc- 
cessor deemed  expedient  or  prudent. 

It  was  known  to  a  few  persons  that  when  Mr.  Johnson  arrived 
from  Fortress  Monroe  on  the  morning  of  April  10,  and  found  the 
National  Capital  in  a  blaze  of  patriotic  excitement  over  the  surrender 
of  Lee's  army  the  day  before  at  Appomattox,  he  hastened  to  the 
White  House,  and  addressed  to  the  unwilling  ears  of  Mr.  Lincoln  an 
earnest  protest  against  the  indulgent  terms  conceded  by  General 
Grant.  Mr.  Johnson  believed  that  General  Lee  should  not  have 
been  permitted  to  surrender  his  sword  as  a  soldier  of  honor,  but  that 
General  Grant  should  have  received  the  entire  command  as  prisoners 
of  war,  and  should  have  held  Lee  in  confinement  until  he  could 
receive  instructions  from  the  Administration  at  Washington.  The 
spirit  which  these  views  indicated  was  understood  by  those  who  best 
knew  Mr.  Johnson  to  be  contained,  if  not  expressed,  in  this  declara- 
tion of  his  first  address :  "  As  to  an  indication  of  any  policy  which 
may  be  pursued  by  me  in  the  conduct  of  the  Government,  I  have  to 
say  that  that  must  be  left  for  development  as  the  Administration 


PRESIDENT  JOHNSON'S  SPEECHES.  9 

progresses.  The  message  or  the  declaration  must  be  made  by  the 
acts  as  they  transpire.  The  only  assurance  I  can  now  give  of  the 
future  is  by  reference  to  the  past." 

The  effect  produced  upon  the  public  by  this  speech,  which  might 
be  regarded  as  an  Inaugural  address,  was  not  happy.  Besides  its 
evasive  character  respecting  public  policies  which  every  observing 
man  noted  with  apprehension,  an  unpleasant  impression  was  created 
by  its  evasive  character  respecting  Mr.  Lincoln.  The  entire  absence 
of  eulogy  of  the  slain  President  was  remarked.  There  was  no  men- 
tion of  his  name  or  of  his  character  or  of  his  office.  The  only  allu- 
sion in  any  way  whatever  to  Mr.  Lincoln  was  Mr.  Johnson's  declara- 
tion that  he  was  "  almost  overwhelmed  by  the  announcement  of  the 
sad  event  which  has  so  recently  occurred."  While  he  found  no  time 
to  praise  one  whose  praise  was  on  every  tongue,  he  made  ample 
reference  to  himself  and  his  own  past  history.  Though  speaking 
not  more  than  five  minutes,  it  was  noticed  that  "I"  and  "my"  and 
"  me "  were  mentioned  at  least  a  score  of  times.  A  boundless 
egotism  was  inferred  from  the  line  of  his  remarks :  "  My  past  public 
life  which  has  been  long  and  laborious  has  been  founded,  as  I  in 
good  conscience  believe,  upon  a  great  principle  of  right  which  lies 
at  the  basis  of  all  things."  "  I  must  be  permitted  to  say,  if  I  under- 
stand the  feelings  of  my  own  heart,  I  have  long  labored  to  amelio- 
rate and  alleviate  the  condition  of  the  great  mass  of  the  American 
people."  "Toil  and  an  honest  advocacy  of  the  great  principles  of 
free  government  have  been  my  lot.  The  duties  have  been  mine, 
the  consequences  God's."  Senator  John  P.  Hale  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, who  was  present  on  the  occasion,  said  with  characteristic  wit, 
that  "Johnson  seemed  willing  to  share  the  glory  of  his  achieve- 
ments with  his  Creator,  but  utterly  forgot  that  Mr.  Lincoln  had 
any  share  of  credit  in  the  suppression  of  the  Rebellion." 

Three  days  later  (April  18)  a  delegation  of  distinguished  citizens 
of  Illinois  called  upon  Mr.  Johnson  under  circumstances  at  once 
extraordinary  and  touching.  The  dead  President  still  lay  in  the 
White  House.  Before  the  solemn  and  august  procession  should 
leave  the  National  Capital  to  bear  his  mortal  remains  to  the  State 
which  had  loved  and  honored  him,  the  Illinois  delegation  called  to 
assure  his  successor  of  their  respect  and  their  confidence.  Governor 
Oglesby  who  spoke  for  his  associates,  addressed  the  President  in 
language  eminently  befitting  the  occasion.  "  In  the  midst  of  this 
sadness,"  said  he,  "  through  the  oppressive  gloom  that  surrounds  us, 


10  TWENTY  TEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

we  look  to  you  and  to  a  brighter  future  for  our  country.  .  .  .  The 
record  of  your  past  life,  familiar  to  all,  your  noble  efforts  to  stay 
the  hand  of  treason  and  restore  our  flag  to  the  uttermost  bounds 
of  the  Republic,  give  assurance  to  the  great  State  we  represent 
that  we  may  safely  trust  the  nation's  destinies  in  your  hands." 

Mr.  Johnson  responded  in  a  speech  of  much  greater  length  than 
his  first,  embodying  a  wider  range  of  topics  than  seemed  to  be  de- 
manded by  the  proprieties  of  the  occasion.  He  evidently  strove  to 
repair  the  error  of  his  former  address.  He  now  diminished  the  num- 
ber of  gratulatory  allusions  to  his  own  career,  and  made  appropriate 
and  affecting  reference  to  his  predecessor.  He  spoke  with  profound 
emotion  of  the  tragical  termination  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  life :  "  The 
beloved  of  all  hearts  has  been  assassinated."  Pausing  thoughtfully 
he  added,  "And  when  we  trace  this  crime  to  its  cause,  when  we 
remember  the  source  whence  the  assassin  drew  his  inspiration,  and 
then  look  at  the  result,  we  stand  yet  more  astounded  at  this  most 
barbarous,  most  diabolical  act.  .  .  .  We  can  trace  its  cause  through 
successive  steps  back  to  that  source  which  is  the  spring  of  all  our 
woes.  No  one  can  say  that  if  the  perpetrator  of  this  fiendish  deed 
be  arrested,  he  should  not  undergo  the  extremest  penalty  of  the  law 
known  for  crime:  none  will  say  that  mercy  should  interpose.  But  is 
he  alone  guilty  ?  Here,  gentlemen,  you  perhaps  expect  me  to  present 
some  indication  of  my  future  policy.  One  thing  I  will  say :  every 
era  teaches  its  lesson.  The  times  we  live  in  are  not  without  instruc- 
tion. The  American  people  must  be  taught  —  if  they  do  not  already 
feel  —  that  treason  is  a  crime  and  must  be  punished.  The  Govern- 
ment must  be  strong  not  only  to  protect  but  to  punish.  When  we 
turn  to  the  criminal  code  we  find  arson  laid  down  as  a  crime  with  its 
appropriate  penalty.  We  find  theft  and  murder  denounced  as  crimes, 
and  their  appropriate  penalty  prescribed ;  and  there,  too,  we  find  the 
last  and  highest  of  crimes, — treason.  .  .  .  The  people  must  under- 
stand that  treason  is  the  blackest  of  crimes  and  will  surely  be  pun- 
ished. .  .  .  Let  it  be  engraven  on  every  mind  that  treason  is  a  crime, 
and  traitors  shall  suffer  its  penalty.  ...  I  do  not  harbor  bitter  or 
resentful  feelings  towards  any.  .  .  .  When  the  question  of  exercising 
mercy  comes  before  me  it  will  be  considered  calmly,  judicially  — 
remembering  that  I  am  the  Executive  of  the  Nation.  I  know  men  love 
to  have  their  names  spoken  of  in  connection  with  acts  of  mercy,  and 
how  easy  it  is  to  yield  to  that  impulse.  But  we  must  never  forget 
that  what  may  be  mercy  to  the  individual  is  cruelty  to  the  State." 


PRESIDENT  JOHNSON'S  SPEECHES.  11 

This  speech  was  reported  by  an  accomplished  stenographer,  and 
was  submitted  to  Mr.  Johnson's  inspection  before  publication.  It 
contained  a  declaration  intimating  to  his  hearers,  if  not  explicitly 
assuring  them,  that  "  the  policy  of  Mr.  Lincoln  in  the  past  shall  be 
my  policy  in  the  future."  When  in  reading  the  report  he  came  to 
this  passage,  Mr.  Johnson  queried  whether  his  words  had  not  been 
in  some  degree  misapprehended ;  and  while  he  was  engaged  with  the 
stenographer  in  modifying  the  form  of  expression,  Mr.  Preston  King 
of  New  York,  who  was  constantly  by  his  side  as  adviser,  interposed 
the  suggestion  that  all  reference  to  the  subject  be  stricken  out.  To 
this  Mr.  Johnson  promptly  assented.  He  had  undoubtedly  gone 
farther  than  he  intended  in  speaking  to  Mr.  Lincoln's  immediate 
friends,  and  the  correction  —  inspired  by  one  holding  the  radical 
views  of  Mr.  King  —  was  equivalent  to  a  declaration  that  the  policy 
of  Mr.  Lincoln  had  been  more  conservative  than  that  which  he  in- 
tended to  pursue.  By  those  who  knew  the  character  of  Mr.  John- 
son's mind,  the  ascendency  of  Mr.  King  in  his  councils,  and  the 
retirement  of  Mr.  Seward  from  the  State  Department  were  foregone 
conclusions.  The  known  moderation  of  Mr.  Seward's  views  would 
not  consist  with  the  fierce  vigor  of  the  new  administration  as  now 
clearly  foreshadowed.  Mr.  Seward  and  Mr.  King,  moreover,  were 
not  altogether  in  harmony  in  New  York ;  and  this  was  so  far  recog- 
nized by  the  public  that  Mr.  King's  displacement  from  the  Senate  by 
the  election  of  Governor  Morgan  two  years  before  was  universally 
attributed  to  the  Seward  influence  skillfully  directed  by  Mr.  Thurlow 
Weed.  The  resentment  felt  by  Mr.  King's  friends  had  been  very 
deep,  and  the  opportunity  to  gratify  it  seemed  now  to  be  presented. 

As  soon  as  the  Illinois  delegation  had  retired,  the  members  of  the 
Christian  Commission  then  in  session  at  Washington  called  upon 
the  President.  In  reply  to  their  earnest  address,  he  begged  them  as 
intelligent  men  representing  the  power  of  the  Christian  Church,  to 
exert  their  moral  influence  "  in  erecting  a  standard  by  which  every- 
body should  be  taught  to  believe  that  treason  is  the  highest  crime 
known  to  the  laws,  and  that  the  perpetrator  should  be  visited  with 
the  punishment  which  he  deserves."  This  substantial  repetition 
of  the  views  expressed  in  his  Illinois  speech  derived  significance 
from  the  fact  that  the  clergyman  who  spoke  for  the  Christian  Com- 
mission (Rev.  Dr.  Borden  of  Albany)  had  expressed  the  hope  in  his 
address  to  the  President  that  "  in  the  administration  of  justice,  mercy 
would  follow  the  success  of  arms." 


12  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

"While  the  remains  of  the  late  President  were  yet  reposing  in  the 
National  Capital,  and  still  more  while  his  funeral-train  was  on  the 
way  to  his  tomb,  the  reception  of  official  deputations  and  political 
bodies  was  continued  by  his  successor.  Mr.  Johnson  was  always 
ready  to  explain  with  some  iteration  and  with  great  emphasis  his 
views  of  the  Government's  duty  respecting  those  who  had  been  en- 
gaged in  rebellion  against  its  authority.  To  a  representative  body  of 
loyal  Southerners  who  by  reason  of  their  fidelity  to  the  Union  had 
been  compelled  to  flee  from  home,  Mr.  Johnson  was  especially  demon- 
strative in  his  sympathy,  and  positive  in  his  assurances.  In  reply  to 
their  address  he  said  :  "  It  is  hardly  necessary  for  me  on  this  occasion 
to  declare  that  my  sympathies  and  impulses  in  connection  with  this 
nefarious  rebellion  beat  in  unison  with  yours.  Those  who  have 
passed  through  this  bitter  ordeal  and  who  participated  in  it  to  a 
great  extent,  are  more  competent,  as  I  think,  to  judge  and  determine 
the  true  policy  that  should  be  pursued.  I  know  how  to  appreciate 
the  condition  of  being  driven  from  one's  home.  I  can  sympathize 
with  him  whose  all  has  been  taken  from  him :  I  can  sympathize  with 
him  who  has  been  driven  from  the  place  that  gave  his  children  birth. 
.  .  .  I  have  become  satisfied  that  mercy  without  justice  is  a  crime,  and 
that  when  mercy  and  clemency  are  exercised  by  the  Executive  it 
should  always  be  done  in  view  of  justice.  In  that  manner  alone  the 
great  prerogative  of  mercy  is  properly  exercised.  The  time  has  now 
come,  as  you  who  have  had  to  drink  this  bitter  cup  are  fully  aware, 
when  the  American  people  should  be  made  to  understand  the  true 
nature  of  crime.  Of  crime  generally  our  people  have  a  high  under- 
standing as  well  as  of  the  necessity  of  its  punishment ;  but  in  the 
catalogue  of  crimes  there  is  one,  and  that  the  highest  known  to  the 
laws  and  the  Constitution,  of  which  since  the  days  of  Aaron  Burr 
they  have  become  oblivious.  That  crime  is  treason.  The  time  has 
come  when  the  people  should  be  taught  to  understand  the  length 
and  breadth,  the  height  and  depth,  of  treason.  One  who  has  become 
distinguished  in  the  rebellion  says  that  'when  traitors  become  nu- 
merous enough,  treason  becomes  respectable,  and  to  become  a  traitor 
is  to  constitute  a  portion  of  the  aristocracy  of  the  country.'  God 
protect  the  American  people  against  such  an  aristocracy !  .  .  .  When 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  shall  ascertain  who  are  the 
conscious  and  intelligent  traitors  the  penalty  and  the  forfeit  should 
be  paid." 

A  delegation  of  Pennsylvanians  called  upon  him  with  ex-Secre- 


THE  SPIRIT  OF  THE  VENDETTA.  13 

tary  Simon  Cameron  as  their  spokesman.  In  reply  Mr.  Johnson 
said,  "  There  has  been  an  effort  since  this  rebellion  began,  to  make 
the  impression  that  it  was  a  mere  political  struggle,  or,  as  I  see  it 
thrown  out  in  some  of  the  papers,  a  struggle  for  the  ascendency  of 
certain  principles  from  the  dawn  of  the  government  to  the  present 
time,  and  now  settled  by  the  final  triumph  of  the  Federal  arms.  If 
this  is  admitted,  the  Government  is  at  an  end ;  for  no  question  can 
arise  but  they  will  make  it  a  party  issue,  and  then  to  whatever  length 
they  carry  it,  the  party  defeated  will  be  only  a  party  defeated,  with 
no  crime  attaching  thereto.  But  I  say  treason  is  a  crime,  the  very 
highest  crime  known  to  the  law,  and  there  are  men  who  ought  to 
surfer  the  penalty  of  their  treason !  ...  To  the  unconscious,  the  de- 
ceived, the  conscripted,  in  short,  to  the  great  mass  of  the  misled,  I 
would  say  mercy,  clemency,  reconciliation,  and  the  restoration  of 
their  government.  But  to  those  who  have  deceived,  to  the  conscious, 
intelligent,  influential  traitor  who  attempted  to  destroy  the  life  of  a 
nation,  I  would  say,  on  you  be  inflicted  the  severest  penalties  of 
your  crime." 

The  inflexible  sternness  of  Mr.  Johnson's  tone  and  the  frequent 
repetition  of  his  intention  to  inflict  the  severest  penalty  of  the  law 
upon  the  leading  traitors,  began  to  create  apprehension  in  the  North. 
It  was  feared  that  the  country  might  be  called  upon  to  witness,  after 
the  four  years'  carnival  of  death  on  the  battle-field  and  in  the  hospi- 
tal, an  era  of  "  bloody  assizes,"  made  the  more  rigorous  and  revenge- 
ful from  the  peculiar  sense  of  injury  which  the  President,  as  a  loyal 
Southerner,  had  realized  in  his  own  person.  This  feeling  was  proba- 
bly still  further  aggravated  by  his  avowed  sympathy  with  the  thou- 
sands in  the  South  who  had  been  maimed,  driven  from  home, 
stripped  of  all  their  property,  simply  because  of  their  fidelity  to  the 
Constitution  and  the  Union  of  their  fathers.  The  spirit  of  the  Ven- 
detta, unknown  in  the  Northern  States,  was  frequently  shown  in  the 
South,  where  it  had  long  been  domesticated  with  all  its  Corsican 
ferocity.  It  had  raged  in  many  instances  to  the  extermination  of 
families,  and  in  many  localities  to  the  destruction  of  peace  and 
the  utter  defiance  of  law — not  infrequently  indeed  paralyzing  the 
administration  of  justice  in  whole  counties.  Often  seeking  and 
waging  open  combat  with  ferocious  courage,  it  did  not  hesitate  at 
secret  murder,  at  waylaying  on  lonely  roads  with  superior  numbers, 
and  it  sometimes  went  so  far  as  to  torture  an  unhappy  victim  before 
the  final  death-blow.  The  language  of  Mr.  Johnson  was  interpreted 


14  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

by  the  merciful  in  the  North  as  indicating  that  his  own  injuries  and 
fierce  conflicts  during  the  war  had  possibly  inspired  him  with  this 
fell  spirit  of  revenge,  which  in  his  zeal  he  might  mistake  for  the 
rational  demands  of  justice. 

A  personal  and  somewhat  curious  illustration  of  Mr.  Johnson's 
temper  and  purpose  at  the  time  is  afforded  by  a  conference  between 
himself  and  Senator  Wade  of  Ohio.  Mr.  Wade  was  widely  known 
as  among  the  radical  and  progressive  members  of  the  Republican 
party.  His  immediate  constituents  of  the  Western  Reserve  were  a 
just  and  God-fearing  people,  amply  endowed  with  both  moral  and 
physical  courage ;  but  they  were  not  men  of  blood,  and  they  were 
not  in  sympathy  with  the  apparent  purposes  of  the  President.  It  is 
not  improbable  that  Mr.  Wade's  views  were  somewhat  in  advance 
of  those  held  by  the  majority  of  the  people  he  represented,  but  he 
was  evidently  not  in  accord  with  the  threatenings  and  slaughter 
breathed  out  by  the  President. 

"Well,  Mr.  Wade,  what  would  you  do  were  you  in  my  place 
and  charged  with  my  responsibilities?"  inquired  the  President.  "I 
think,"  replied  the  frank  and  honest  old  senator  from  Ohio,  "  I  should 
either  force  into  exile  or  hang  about  ten  or  twelve  of  the  worst 
of  those  fellows :  perhaps  by  way  of  full  measure,  I  should  make  it 
thirteen,  just  a  baker's  dozen."  —  "But  how,"  rejoined  the  President, 
"  are  you  going  to  pick  out  so  small  a  number  and  show  them  to 
be  guiltier  than  the  rest?"  —  "It  won't  do  to  hang  a  very  large 
number,"  rejoined  Wade,  "  and  I  think  if  you  would  give  me  time, 
I  could  name  thirteen  that  stand  at  the  head  in  the  work  of  rebel- 
lion. I  think  we  would  all  agree  on  Jeff  Davis,  Toombs,  Benjamin, 
Slidell,  Mason,  and  Howell  Cobb.  If  we  did  no  more  than  drive 
these  half-dozen  out  of  the  country,  we  should  accomplish  a  good 
deal." 

The  interview  was  long,  and  at  its  close  Mr.  Johnson  expressed 
surprise  that  Wade  was  willing  to  let  "the  traitors,"  as  he  always 
styled  them,  "escape  so  easily."  He  said  that  he  had  ^expected  the 
heartiest  support  from  Wade  in  a  policy  which,  as  he  outlined  it  to 
the  senator,  seemed  in  thoroughness  to  rival  that  of  Strafford.  Mr. 
Wade  left  the  Executive  Mansion  with  his  mind  divided  between 
admiration  for  the  stern  resolve  and  high  courage  of  the  President 
on  the  one  hand,  and  his  fear  on  the  other  that  a  policy  so  deter- 
mined and  aggressive  as  Mr.  Johnson  seemed  bent  on  pursuing, 
might  work  a  re-action  in  the  North,  and  that  thus  in  the  end  less 


FUNERAL  OF  PRESIDENT  LINCOLN.  15 

might  be  done  in  providing  proper  safeguards  against  another  rebel- 
lion, than  if  too  much  had  not  been  attempted. 


The  remains  of  the  late  President  lay  in  state  at  the  Executive 
Mansion  for  four  days.  The  entire  city  seemed  as  a  house  of 
mourning.  It  was  remarked  that  even  the  little  children  in  the 
streets  wore  no  smiles  upon  their  faces,  so  deeply  were  they  im- 
pressed by  the  calamity  which  had  brought  grief  to  every  loyal  heart. 
The  martial  music  which  had  been  resounding  in  glad  celebration  of 
the  national  triumph  had  ceased ;  public  edifice  and  private  mansion 
were  alike  draped  with  the  insignia  of  grief;  the  flag  of  the  Union, 
which  had  been  waving  more  proudly  than  ever  before,  was  now 
lowered  to  half-mast,  giving  mute  but  significant  expression  to  the 
sorrow  that  was  felt  wherever  on  sea  or  land  that  flag  was  honored. 

Funeral  services,  conducted  by  the  leading  clergymen  of  the  city, 
were  held  in  the  East  Room  on  Wednesday  the  19th  of  April.  Amid 
the  solemn  tolling  of  church-bells,  and  the  still  more  solemn  thunder- 
ing of  minute-guns  from  the  vast  line  of  fortifications  which  had 
protected  Washington,  the  body,  escorted  by  an  imposing  military 
and  civic  procession,  was  transferred  to  the  rotunda  of  the  Capitol. 
The  day  was  observed  throughout  the  Union  as  one  of  fasting, 
humiliation,  and  prayer.  The  deep  feeling  of  the  people  found 
expression  in  all  the  forms  of  religious  solemnity.  Services  in  the 
churches  throughout  the  land  were  held  in  unison  with  the  services 
at  the  Executive  mansion,  and  were  everywhere  attended  with  exhi- 
bition of  profound  personal  grief.  In  all  the  cities  of  Canada  busi- 
ness was  suspended,  public  meetings  of  condolence  with  a  kindred 
people  were  held,  and  prayers  were  read  in  the  churches.  Through- 
out the  Confederate  States  where  war  had  ceased  but  peace  had  not 
yet  come,  the  people  joined  in  significant  expressions  of  sorrow  over 
the  death  of  him  whose  very  name  they  had  been  taught  to  execrate. 

Early  on  the  morning  of  the  21st  the  body  was  removed  from 
the  Capitol  and  placed  on  the  funeral-car  which  was  to  transport  it 
to  its  final  resting-place  in  Illinois.  The  remains  of  a  little  son  who 
had  died  three  years  before,  were  taken  from  their  burial-place  in 
Georgetown  and  borne  with  those  of  his  father  for  final  sepulture 
in  the  stately  mausoleum  which  the  public  mind  had  already  decreed 
to  the  illustrious  martyr.  The  train  which  moved  from  the  National 


16  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Capital  was  attended  on  its  course  by  extraordinary  manifestations 
of  grief  on  the  part  of  the  people.  Baltimore,  which  had  reluctantly 
and  sullenly  submitted  to  Mr.  Lincoln's  formal  inauguration  and  to 
his  authority  as  President,  now  showed  every  mark  of  honor  and 
of  homage  as  his  body  was  borne  through  her  streets,  Confederate 
and  Unionist  alike  realizing  the  magnitude  of  the  calamity  which 
had  overwhelmed  both  North  and  South.  In  Philadelphia  the  entire 
population  did  reverence  to  the  memory  of  the  murdered  patriot. 
A  procession  of  more  than  a  hundred  thousand  persons  formed  his 
funeral  cortege  to  Independence  Hall,  where  the  body  remained  until 
the  ensuing  day.  The  silence  of  the  sorrowful  night  was  in  strange 
contrast  with  the  scene  in  the  same  place,  four  years  before,  when 
Mr.  Lincoln,  in  the  anxieties  and  perils  of  the  opening  rebellion, 
hoisted  the  National  flag  over  our  ancient  Temple  of  Liberty,  and 
before  a  great  and  applauding  multitude  defended  the  principles  which 
that  flag  typifies.  He  concluded  in  words  which,  deeply  impressive 
at  the  time,  proved  sadly  prophetic  now  that  his  dead  body  lay  in  a 
bloody  shroud  where  his  living  form  then  stood:  "Sooner  than  sur- 
render these  principles,  I  would  be  assassinated  on  this  spot." 

In  the  city  of  New  York  the  popular  feeling  was,  if  possible,  even 
more  marked  than  in  Philadelphia.  The  streets  were  so  crowded 
that  the  procession  moved  with  difficulty  to  the  City  Hall,  where, 
amid  the  chantings  of  eight  hundred  singers,  the  body  was  placed 
upon  the  catafalque  prepared  for  it.  Throughout  the  day  and 
throughout  the  entire  night  the  living  tide  of  sorrowful  humanity 
flowed  past  the  silent  form.  At  the  solemn  hour  of  midnight  the 
German  musical  societies  sang  a  funeral-hymn  with  an  effect  so  im- 
pressive and  so  touching  that  thousands  of  strong  men  were  in  tears. 
Other  than  this  no  sound  was  heard  throughout  the  night  except 
the  footsteps  of  the  advancing  and  receding  crowd. "  At  sunrise 
many  thousands  still  waiting  in  the  park  were  obliged  to  turn 
away  disappointed.  It  was  observed  that  every  person  who  passed 
through  the  hall,  even  the  humblest  and  poorest,  wore  the  insignia  of 
mourning.  In  a  city  accustomed  to  large  assemblies  and  to  unre- 
strained expressions  of  popular  feeling,  no  such  scene  had  ever  been 
witnessed.  On  the  afternoon  appointed  for  the  procession  to  move 
Westward,  all  business  was  suspended,  and  the  grief  of  New  York 
found  utterance  in  Union  Square  before  a  great  concourse  of  people 
in  a  funeral  oration  by  the  historian  Bancroft  and  in  an  elegiac  ode 
by  William  Cullen  Bryant. 


FUNERAL  OF  PRESIDENT  LINCOLN.  17 

Similar  scenes  were  witnessed  in  the  great  cities  along  the  entire 
route.  Final  obsequies  were  celebrated  in  Oakridge  Cemetery  near 
Springfield  on  the  fourth  day  of  May.  Major-General  Joseph 
Hooker  acted  as  chief  marshal  upon  the  occasion,  and  an  impres- 
sive sermon  was  pronounced  by  Bishop  Simpson  of  the  Methodist- 
Episcopal  church.  Perhaps  in  the  history  of  the  world  no  such 
outpouring  of  the  people,  no  such  exhibition  of  deep  feeling,  had  ever 
been  witnessed  as  on  this  funeral  march  from  the  National  Capital 
to  the  capital  of  Illinois.  The  pomp  with  which  sovereigns  and 
nobles  are  interred  is  often  formal  rather  than  emotional,  attaching 
to  the  rank  rather  than  to  the  person.  Louis  Philippe  appealed  to 
the  sympathy  of  France  when  he  brought  the  body  of  the  Emperor 
Napoleon  from  St.  Helena  twenty  years  after  his  death;  but  the 
popular  feeling  among  the  French  was  chiefly  displayed  in  connection 
with  the  elaborate  rites  which  attended  the  transfer  of  the  dead  hero 
to  the  Invalided,  where  the  shattered  remnants  pf  his  valiant  and  once 
conquering  legions  formed  for  the  last  time  around  him.  Twelve 
years  later  the  victorious  rival  by  whom  the  imperial  warrior  was  at 
last  overcome,  received  from  the  populace  of  London,  as  well  as 
from  the  crown,  the  peers,  and  the  commons  of  England,  the  heartiest 
tribute  that  Britons  ever  paid  to  human  greatness. 

The  splendor  of  the  ceremonials  which  aggrandize  living  royalty 
as  much  as  they  glorify  dead  heroism,  was  wholly  wanting  in  the 
obsequies  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  No  part  was  taken  by  the  Government 
except  the  provision  of  a  suitable  military  escort.  All  beyond  was 
the  spontaneous  movement  of  the  people.  For  seventeen  hundred 
miles,  through  eight  great  States  of  the  Union  whose  population 
was  not  less  than  fifteen  millions,  an  almost  continuous  procession  of 
mourners  attended  the  remains  of  the  beloved  President.  There 
was  no  pageantry  save  their  presence.  There  was  no  tribute  but 
their  tears.  They  bowed  before  the  bier  of  him  who  had  been 
prophet,  priest,  and  king  to  his  people,  who  had  struck  the  shackles 
from  the  slave,  who  had  taught  a  higher  sense  of  duty  to  the  free 
man,  who  had  raised  the  Nation  to  a  loftier  conception  of  faith 
and  hope  and  charity.  A  countless  multitude  of  men,  with  music  and 
banner  and  cheer  and  the  inspiration  of  a  great  cause,  presents  a 
spectacle  that  engages  the  eye,  fills  the  mind,  appeals  to  the  imagi- 
nation. But  the  deepest  sympathy  of  the  soul  is  touched,  the  height 
of  human  sublimity  is  reached,  when  the  same  multitude,  stricken  with 
a  common  sorrow,  stands  with  uncovered  head,  reverent  and  silent. 

VOL.  II.  2 


CHAPTER    II. 

MILITARY  REVIEW  IN  HONOR  OF  UNION  VICTORY. —  THE  EASTERN  AND  WESTERN 
ARMIES.  —  THEIR  GREAT  ACHIEVEMENTS.  —  SPECIAL  INTEREST.  —  NUMBER  OF 
BATTLES  DURING  THE  WAR.  —  NUMBER  EACH  YEAR.  —  STRUGGLE  OF  1864-65.  —  DIS- 
CIPLINE OF  THE  ARMY. — MORAL  RESPONSIBILITY  OF  CONTINUING  THE  CONTEST. — 
NEEDLESS  SLAUGHTER  OF  MEN.  —  CONFEDERATE  RESPONSIBILITY.  —  SPEECH  OF 
ROBERT  M.  T.  HUNTER,  FOLLOWED  BY  JUDAH  P.  BENJAMIN.  —  EXTREME  MEASURES 

ADVOCATED  BY  HIM.  —  HlS  OVER-ZEAL.  —  MR.  BENJAMIN  SEEKS  REFUGE  IN  ENG- 
LAND. —  HIS  SUCCESS  THERE  DUE  TO  ENGLISH  SYMPATHY  WITH  THE  REBELLION.  — 

His  MALIGNITY  TOWARDS  THE  UNION.  —  SOUTHERN  CHARACTER.  —  ITS  STRONG 
POINTS  AND  ITS  WEAK  POINTS.  —  CONDUCT  OF  CONFEDERATE  CONGRESS.  —  THEIR 
INFLAMMATORY  ADDRESS.  —  ITS  EXTRAVAGANCE  AND  ABSURDITY.  —  JEFFERSON 
DA  vis's  ADDRESS  TO  CONGRESS.  —  His  LACK  OF  MORAL  COURAGE.  —  DISBANDMENT 
OF  UNION  ARMY,  1,000,516  MEN.  — ANOTHER  MILLION  GONE  BEFORE.  —  SELF-SUPPORT 
ANP  SELF-ADJUSTMENT.  —  COMPARISON  WITH-  THE  ARMY  OF  THE  REVOLUTION.  — 
UNION  OFFICERS  ALL  YOUNG  MEN. —  AGES  OF  OFFICERS  IN  OTHER  WARS.  —  AGES 
OF  REGULAR  ARMY  OFFICERS.  —  OF  VOLUNTEER  OFFICERS.  —  HARMONY  OF  THE 
TWO.  —  SPECIAL  EFFICIENCY  OF  THE  VOLUNTEERS.  —  MAGNITUDE  OF  THE  UNION 
ARMY.  —  THE  INFANTRY,  CAVALRY,  ARTILLERY.  —  NUMBER  OF  GENERALS.  —  NUM- 
BER OF  REGIMENTS.  —  MILITARY  RESOURCES  OF  THE  REPUBLIC.  —  ITS  SECURITY  IN 
TIME  OF  DANGER. 

"TjlROM  saddening  associations  with  the  tragical  death  of  Mr. 
Jj  Lincoln,  popular  attention  was  turned  three  weeks  after  his 
interment  to  a  great  military  display  in  the  Capital  of  the  Nation 
in  honor  of  the  final  victory  for  the  Union.  The  exigencies  of  the 
closing  campaign  had  transferred  the  armies  commanded  by  General 
Sherman  from  the  Mississippi  Valley  to  the  Atlantic-  coast.  The 
soldiers  of  Port  Hudson  and  Vicksburg,  the  heroes  of  Donelson, 
Chattanooga,  and  Atlanta,  had  been  brought  within  a  day's  march 
of  the  bronzed  veterans  whose  battle-flags  were  emblazoned  with  the 
victories  of  Antietam  and  Gettysburg  and  with  the  crowning  triumph 
at  Appomattox.  It  was  the  happy  suggestion  of  Secretary  Stanton 
which  assembled  all  these  forces  in  the  National  Capital  to  be  re- 
viewed by  the  Commander-in-Chief.  Through  four  years  of  stern  and 
perilous  duty,  there  had  been  no  holiday,  no  parade  of  ceremony,  no 
evolution  for  mere  display,  either  by  the  troops  of  the  East  or  of  the 
West.  Their  time  had  been  passed  in  camp  and  in  siege,  in  march 

18 


REVIEW  OF  THE  UNION"  ARMIES.  19 

and  in  battle,  with  no  effort  relaxed,  no  vigor  abated,  no  vigilance 
suspended,  during  all  the  long  period  when  the  fate  of  the  Union 
was  at  stake.  It  was  now  fitting  that  the  President,  attended  by 
the  chief  officers  of  the  Government,  should  welcome  them  and 
honor  them  in  the  name  of  the  Republic.  They  had  brought  from 
the  field  the  priceless  trophy  of  American  Nationality  as  the  reward 
of  their  valorous  struggle.  By  the  voice  of  the  people  a  "  triumph  " 
as  demonstrative,  if  not  as  formal,  as  that  given  to  a  conqueror  in 
Ancient  Rome  was  now  decreed  to  them.  They  had  earned  the 
right  to  be  applauded  on  the  via  sacra,  and  to  receive  the  laurel- 
wreath  from  the  steps  of  the  Capitol. 

The  first  day's  review,  Wednesday,  May  23,  was  given  to  the 
Army  of  the  Potomac,  of  which  General  Meade  had  remained  the 
commander  since  the  victory  at  Gettysburg,  but  whose  operations 
during  the  closing  year  of  the  struggle  had  been  under  the  personal 
direction  of  General  Grant.  A  part  only  of  its  vast  forces  marched 
through  Washington  on  that  day  of  loyal  pride  and  gladness ;  but 
the  number  was  large  beyond  the  power  of  the  eye  to  apprehend, 
beyond  any  but  the  skilled  mind  to  reckon.  An  approximate  con- 
ception of  it  can  be  reached  by  stating  that  one  hundred  and  fifty-one 
regiments  of  infantry,  thirty-six  regiments  of  cavalry,  and  twenty- 
two  batteries  of  artillery  passed  under  the  eye  of  the  President,  who 
reviewed  the  whole  from  a  platform  in  front  of  the  Executive 
Mansion. 

On  the  ensuing  day  the  Army  of  the  Tennessee  and  the  Army  of 
Georgia,  constituting  the  right  and  left  wing  of  General  Sherman's 
forces,  were  reviewed.  There  was  naturally  some  rivalry  of  a 
friendly  type  between  the  Eastern  and  Western  soldiers,  and  special 
observation  was  made  of  their  respective  qualities  and  characteris- 
tics. The  geographical  distinction  was  not  altogether  accurate,  for 
Western  troops  had  always  formed  a  valuable  part  of  the  Army  of 
the  Potomac ;  while  troops  from  the  East  were  incorporated  in  Sher- 
man's army,  and  had  shared  the  glories  of  the  Atlanta  campaign  and 
of  the  March  to  the  sea.  It  was  true,  however,  that  the  great  mass 
of  the  Army  of  the  Potomac  came  from  the  eastern  side  of  the  Alle- 
ghanies,  while  the  great  mass  of  Sherman's  command  came  from  the 
western  side.  The  aggregate  number  reviewed  on  the  second  day 
did  not  differ  materially  from  the  number  on  the  first  day.  There 
were  some  twenty  more  regiments  of  infantry  on  the  second  day,  but 
fewer  cavalry  regiments  and  fewer  batteries  of  artillery. 


20  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

The  special  interest  which  attached  to  the  review,  aside  from  the 
inestimable  significance  of  a  restored  Union,  consisted  in  the  fact 
that  the  spectators,  who  were  reckoned  by  tens  of  thousands,  saw 
before  them  an  actual,  living,  fighting  army.  They  were  not  holiday 
troops  with  bright  uniforms,  trained  only  for  display  and  carrying 
guns  that  were  never  discharged  against  a  foe.  They  were  a  great 
body  of  veterans  who  had  not  slept  under  a  roof  for  years,  who  had 
marched  over  countries  more  extended  than  those  traversed  by  the 
Legions  of  Csesar,  who  had  come  from  a  hundred  battle-fields  on 
which  they  had  left  dead  comrades  more  numerous  than  the  living 
who  now  celebrated  the  final  victory  of  peace.  It  was  the  remem- 
brance of  this  which  in  all  the  glad  rejoicing  over  the  past  and  all  the 
bright  anticipation  of  the  future  lent  a  tinge  of  sadness  to  the  splen- 
did and  inspiring  spectacle  of  the  day.  The  applause  so  heartily 
given  for  the  soldiers  who  were  present  could  not  be  unaccompanied 
by  tears  for  the  fate  of  that  vast  host  which  had  gone  down  to  death 
without  even  the  consolation  of  knowing  that  they  had  not  died  in 
vain. 

In  the  four  years  of  their  service  the  armies  of  the  Union,  count- 
ing every  form  of  conflict,  great  and  small,  had  been  in  twenty-two 
hundred  and  sixty-five  engagements  with  the  Confederate  troops. 
From  the  time  when  active  hostilities  began  until  the  last  gun  of  the 
war  was  fired,  a  fight  of  some  kind  —  a  raid,  a  skirmish,  or  a  pitched 
battle  —  occurred  at  some  point  on  our  widely  extended  front  nearly 
eleven  times  per  week  upon  an  average.  Counting  only  those  en- 
gagements in  which  the  Union  loss  in  killed,  wounded,  and  missing 
exceeded  one  hundred,  the  total  number  was  three  hundred  and 
thirty,  —  averaging  one  every  four  and  a  half  days.  From  the  north- 
ernmost point  of  contact  to  the  southernmost,  the  distance  by  any 
practicable  line  of  communication  was  more  than  two  thousand 
miles.  From  East  to  West  the  extremes  were  fifteen  hundred  miles 
apart. 

During  the  first  year  of  hostilities  —  one  of  preparation  on  both 
sides  —  the  battles  were  naturally  fewer  in  number  and  less  decisive 
in  character  than  afterwards,  when  discipline  had  been  imparted  to 
the  troops  by  drill,  and  when  the  materiel  of  war  had  been  collected 
and  stored  for  prolonged  campaigns.  The  engagements  of  all  kinds 
in  1861  were  thirty-five  in  number,  of  which  the  most  serious  was 
the  Union  defeat  .at  Bull  Run.  In  1862  the  war  had  greatly  in- 
creased in  magnitude  and  intensity,  as  is  shown  by  the  eighty-four 


A  GRAVE  MORAL  RESPONSIBILITY.  21 

engagements  between  the  armies.  The  net  result  of  the  year's  oper- 
ations was  highly  favorable  to  the  Rebellion.  In  1863  the  battles 
were  one  hundred  and  ten  in  number  —  among  them  some  of  the 
most  significant  and  important  victories  for  the  Union.  In  1864 
there  were  seventy-three  engagements,  and  in  the  winter  and  early 
spring  of  1865  there  were  twenty-eight. 

In  fact,  1864-65  was  one  continuous  campaign.  The  armies  of  the 
Union  did  not  go  into  winter-quarters  to  the  extent  of  abandoning  or 
suspending  operations.  They  felt  that  it  was  in  their  power  to  bring 
the  struggle  to  an  end  at  once,  and  they  pressed  forward  with  prodi- 
gious vigor  and  with  complete  success.  General,  Grant  with  his 
characteristic  energy  insisted  that  "  active  and  continuous  operations 
of  all  the  troops  that  could  be  brought  into  the  field  regardless  of 
season  and  weather  were  necessary  to  a  speedy  termination  of  the 
war."  He  had  seen,  as  he  expressed  it  in  his  own  terse,  quaint  lan- 
guage, that  "  the  armies  of  the  East  and  the  West  had  been  acting 
independently  and  without  concert,  like  a  balky  team,  no  two  of 
them  ever  pulling  together."  Under  his  direction  the  forces  of  the 
Union,  however  distant  from  each  other,  were  brought  into  har- 
monious co-operation  and  with  the  happiest  results.  The  discipline 
of  the  Union  army  was  never  so  fine,  its  vigor  was  never  so  great, 
its  spirit  was  never  so  high,  as  at  the  close  of  that  terrible  campaign 
which  under  Grant's  command  in  the  East  began  at  the  Wilderness 
and  ejided  with  Lee's  surrender,  and  which  under  Sherman's  com- 
mand in  the  West  began  with  the  march  towards  Atlanta,  and  closed 
with  the  complete  conquest  of  Georgia  and  the  Carolinas. 


A  grave  moral  responsibility  rests  upon  those  who  continue  a  con- 
test of  arms  after  it  is  made  clear  that  there  is  no  longer  a  possibility 
of  success.  However  far  the  laws  of  war  may  justify  a  belligerent 
in  deceiving  an  enemy,  the  laws  of  honorable  and  humane  dealing 
are  violated  with  one's  own  partisans  when  a  brave  and  confiding 
soldiery  are  led  into  a  fight  known  by  their  commanders  to  be  hope- 
less. Early  in  January,  1865,  Jefferson  Davis  indicated  the  desire 
of  the  Confederate  authorities  to  negotiate  with  the  National  Gov- 
ernment for  the  arrangement  of  the  terms  of  peace,  and  as  a  result 
the  famous  conference  was  held  at?  Fortress  Monroe.  This  step  was 
taken  by  Mr.  Davis  because  he  saw  that  further  effort  on  the  part 


22  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

of  the  Confederates  must  be  utterly  futile.  When  he  failed  at  the 
conference  to  secure  any  recognition  of  his  government,  he  spitefully 
turned  to  the  prolongation  of  the  struggle.  Every  life  destroyed  in 
the  conflict  thereafter  was  needless  slaughter,  and  the  blood  of  the 
victims  cries  out  against  the  Confederate  Government  for  compelling 
the  sacrifice. 

When  at  last  through  sheer  exhaustion  the  Confederate  Armies 
ceased  resistance  and  surrendered,  they  did  so  on  precisely  the  same 
terms  that  had  been  offered  by  the  Government  of  the  Union  three 
months  before.  In  the  interim  the  Confederate  leaders  had  been 
deluding  their  people  with  the  pretense  that  the  "  Lincoln  Govern- 
ment "  had  outraged  the  South  in  refusing  to  recognize  Confederate 
Nationality  even  long  enough  to  treat  with  it  for  peace.  "  Nothing 
beyond  this,"  exclaimed  Mr.  Robert  M.  T.  Hunter  in  a  speech  de- 
livered at  a  meeting  in  Richmond  held  immediately  after  the  Peace 
Conference  to  which  he  had  been  one  of  the  commissioners, — 
"  Nothing  beyond  this  is  needed  to  stir  the  blood  of  Southern  men." 
In  the  course  of  his  inflammatory  address  Mr.  Hunter  made  this 
naive  confession :  "  If  our  people  exhibit  the  proper  spirit  they  will 
bring  forth  the  deserters  from  their  caves ;  and  the  skulkers,  who 
are  avoiding  the  perils  of  the  field,  will  go  forth  to  share  the  dangers 
of  their  countrymen."  The  "  skulkers  "  and  "  deserters  "  referred  to 
were  no  doubt  brave  men  who,  having  fought  as  long  as  there  was 
hope,  were  not  ambitious  to  sacrifice  their  lives  to  carry  out  the 
shameless  bravado  of  the  political  leaders  of  the  Rebellion. 

Mr.  Hunter  spoke  with  singular  intemperance  of  tone  for  one 
who  was  usually  cool,  guarded,  and  conservative.  He  was  followed 
by  the  Mephistopheles  of  the  Rebellion,  the  brilliant,  learned,  sinister 
Secretary  of  State,  Judah  P.  Benjamin.  He  spoke  as  one  who  felt 
that  he  had  the  alias  of  an  English  subject  for  shelter,  or  possibly 
the  Spanish  flag  for  protection,  when  the  worst  should  come,  and  that 
he  might  continue  to  play  the  part  of  Confederate  citizen  so  long  as 
it  favored  his  ambition  and  his  fortune.  He  delivered  a  speech  full 
of  desperate  suggestion  —  so  desperate  indeed  that  it  re-acted  and 
injured  the  cause  for  which  he  was  demanding  harsh  sacrifices  on  the 
part  of  others.  He  urged  upon  his  hearers  that  the  States  of  the  Con- 
federacy had  nearly  seven  hundred  thousand  male  slaves  of  the  age 
for  military  service.  He  gave  the  assurance  that  if  freedom  should 
be  conceded  to  these  men  they  would  fight  in  aid  of  the  Rebellion. 
Besides  advocating  a  guaranty  of  emancipation  to  all  these  black 


CHARACTER  OF  JUDAH  P.  BENJAMIN.  23 

men,  —  for  the  right  to  keep  whom  in  slavery  the  war  had  been 
undertaken,  —  Mr.  Benjamin  urged  that  every  bale  of  cotton,  every 
hogshead  of  tobacco,  every  pound  of  bacon,  every  barrel  of  flour, 
should  be  seized  for  the  benefit  of  the  common  cause. 

Happily  Mr.  Benjamin  went  too  far.  His  over-zeal  had  tempted 
him  to  prove  too  much.  The  Southern  people  who  had  desired  to 
build  up  a  slave  empire,  and  who  despised  the  negro  as  a  freeman, 
were  asked  by  Mr.  Benjamin  to  surrender  this  cherished  project,  and 
join  with  him  in  the  ignoble  design  of  founding  a  confederacy  whose 
corner-stone  should  rest  on  hatred  of  the  Northern  States,  and  whose 
one  achievement  should  be  the  revival  and  extension  of  English 
commercial  power  on  this  continent.  When  the  end  came,  Mr.  Ben- 
jamin did  not  share  the  disasters  and  sacrifices  with  the  sincere  and 
earnest  men  whom  he  had  done  so  much  to  mislead,  and  to  whom  he 
was  bound  in  an  especial  manner  by  the  tie  which  unites  the  victims 
of  a  common  calamity.  Instead  of  this  magnanimous  course  which 
would  in  part  have  redeemed  his  wrong-doing,  Mr.  Benjamin  took 
quick  refuge  under  the  flag  to  whose  allegiance  he  was  born.  He 
left  America  with  the  full  consciousness  that  to  the  measure  of  his 
ability,  which  was  great,  he  had  inflicted  injury  upon  the  country 
which  had  sheltered  and  educated  him,  and  which  had  opened  to 
him  the  opportunity  for  that  large  personal  influence  which  he  had 
used  so  discreditably  to  himself  and  so  disastrously  to  the  cause  he 
espoused. 

Mr.  Benjamin  became  a  resident  of  London  and  subsequently 
won  distinction  at  the  English  Bar  —  rising  to  the  eminence  of 
Queen's  counsel.  His  ability  and  learning  were  everywhere  recog- 
nized, but  it  was  at  the  same  time  admitted  that  he  owed  much  of 
his  success  to  the  sympathy  and  the  support  of  that  preponderating 
class  among  British  merchants  who  cordially  wished  and  worked  for 
our  destruction,  —  who,  covertly  throughout  the  entire  civil  conflict, 
and  openly  where  safe  opportunity  was  presented,  did  all  in  their 
power  to  embarrass  and  injure  the  Union.  If  Mr.  Benjamin  had 
been  loyal,  and  had  honorably  observed  the  special  oath  which  he 
had  taken  to  maintain  and  defend  the  Constitution,  he  might  in  vain 
have  sought  the  patronage  of  that  large  number  of  Englishmen  who 
enriched  him  with  generous  retainers.  No  one  grudged  to  Mr. 
Benjamin  the  wages  of  his  professional  work,  the  reward  of  ability 
and  industry ;  but  the  manner  in  which  he  was  lauded  into  noto- 
riety in  London,  the  effort  constantly  made  to  lionize  and  to 


24  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

aggrandize  him,  were  conspicuous  demonstrations  of  hatred  to  our 
Government,  and  were  significant  expressions  of  regret  that  Mr. 
Benjamin's  treason  had  not  been  successful.  Those  whom  he  served 
either  in  the  Confederacy  or  in  England  in  his  efforts  to  destroy 
the  American  Union  may  eulogize  him  according  to  his  work ;  but 
every  citizen  of  the  Great  Republic,  whose  loyalty  was  unswerving, 
will  regard  Mr.  Benjamin  as  a  foe  in  whom  malignity  was  unrelieved 
by  a  single  trace  of  magnanimity. 

The  Confederates  had  failed  in  war,  but  their  leaders  had  not  the 
moral  courage  to  accept  the  only  practicable  peace.  Their  subse- 
quent course  in  Congress,  in  the  Cabinet,  and  in  the  field,  exposed  in 
very  striking  outline  the  strong  points  and  the  weak  points  .of  South- 
ern character.  It  exhibited  Southern  men  as  possessed  of  the  utmost 
physical  courage  —  often  carried  indeed  to  foolish  audacity.  It  ex- 
hibited them  at  the  same  time  as  singularly  deficient  in  the  attribute 
of  moral  courage.  When  the  Southern  leaders  knew  the  Confederate 
cause  to  be  hopeless  not  a  single  man  among  them  displayed  sufficient 
heroism  to  brave  public  opinion  with  the  declaration  of  his  honest 
belief.  The  absolute  suppression  of  free  discussion  which  had  long 
prevailed  in  the  -South,  the  frequent  murder  of  those  who  attempted 
to  express  an  unpopular  opinion  however  honestly  entertained,  had 
deprived  brave  men  of  every  trait  of  that  higher  form  of  courage 
which  has  given  immortality  of  fame  to  the  moral  heroes  of  the 
world. 

Not  individually  alone  but  in  combined  action  this  weak  trait  in 
Southern  character  was  made  manifest.  Only  a  month  before  the 
time  when  the  Confederacy  was  in  ruins  and  the  members  of  its 
Congress  were  fugitives  from  its  Capital,  they  united  in  an  inflam- 
matory address  to  the  people  of  the  South,  urging  them  to  continue 
the  contest.  They  made  assertions  and  employed  arguments  which 
as  men  of  intelligence  they  could,  not  themselves  believe  and  accept. 
They  strove  by  exciting  evil  passions  and  blind  animosities  to  hurl 
the  soldiers  of  the  Confederacy  once  more  into  a  desperate  fight  with 
all  its  suffering  and  with  certain  defeat.  In  this  address,  which  was 
the  unanimous  voice  of  the  Confederate  Senate  and  the  Confederate 
House  of  Representatives,  the  people  were  told  that  if  they  failed  in 
the  war,  "  the  Southern  States  would  be  held  as  conquered  provinces 
by  the  despotic  government  at  Washington;"  that  they  "would  be 
kept  in  subjugation  by  the  stern  hand  of  military  power  as  Venetia 
and  Lombardy  have  been  held  by  Austria,  as  Poland  is  held  by  the 


ADDRESS  OF  THE  CONFEDERATE  CONGRESS.  25 

Russian  Czar."  A  still  more  terrible  fate  was  foretold.  "  Not  only," 
continued  the  address,  "would  we  be  deprived  of  every  political 
franchise  dear  to  freemen,  but  socially  we  would  be  degraded  to  the 
level  of  slaves.  .  .  .  Not  only  would  the  property  and  estates  of  van- 
quished rebels  be  confiscated,  but  they  would  be  divided  and  distrib- 
uted among  our  African  bondsmen," 

Even  the  extravagance  and  absurdity  of  the  foregoing  declara- 
tions were  outdone  in  other  parts  of  the  address.  These  senators 
and  representatives  —  not  ignorant  men  themselves  —  presumed  so 
far  upon  the  ignorance  of  their  constituents  as  to  assure  them  that 
"  our  enemies  with  a  boastful  insolence  unparalleled  in  the  history  of 
modern  civilization  have  threatened  not  only  our  subjugation,  but 
some  of  them  have  announced  their  determination  if  successful  in 
this  struggle  to  deport  our  entire  white  population,  and  supplant  it 
with  a  new  population  drawn  from  their  own  territory  and  from 
European  countries.  .  .  .  Think  of  it!  That  we  the  descendants 
of  a  brave  ancestry  who  wrested  from  a  powerful  nation  by  force  of 
arms  the  country  which  we  inhabit  —  bequeathed  to  us  by  them,  and 
upon  which  we  have  been  born  and  reared;  that  we  should  be  up- 
rooted from  it  and  an  alien  population  planted  in  our  stead  is  a 
thought  that  should  inspire  us  with  undying  hostility  to  an  enemy 
base  enough  to  have  conceived  it." 

The  white  population  of  the  eleven  Confederate  States  was  at 
that  time  between  five  and  six  millions.  Of  course  no  man  who 
signed  the  address  believed  its  statements.  No  one  believed  that  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  or  the  loyal  people  of  the  North 
were  so  inhuman  and  so  unpatriotic  as  to  advocate  the  deportation 
of  this  vast  population,  or  so  foolish  as  to  think  that  such  a  task 
would  be  practicable  even  if  it  were  desirable.  The  address  was 
read  in  the  North  immediately  after  it  was  issued,  and  created  a 
mingled  feeling  of  astonishment,  amusement,  and  sorrow.  The 
severest  comment  made  upon  it  was  the  remark  of  a  Republican 
representative  in  Congress  who  had  a  most  kindly  feeling  for  the 
men  of  the  South  —  that  "the  deportation  for  life  of  the  men  who 
signed  and  issued  the  libel  would  not  only  be  a  just  punishment  for 
the  offense,  but  would  be  an  undoubted  advantage  to  both  North 
and  South."  The  close  of  the  address  was  in  harmony  with  its 
opening,  and  contained  an  argument  which  to  some  minds  relieved 
the  whole  document  from  wickedness  by  making  it  ludicrous.  Its 
last  words  insisted  that  "failure  makes  us  vassals  of  an  arrogant 


26  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

people  —  secretly  if  not  openly  hated  by  the  most  enlightened  and 
elevated  portions  of  mankind.  Success  records  us  forever  in  letters 
of  light  upon  one  of  the  most  glorious  pages  of  history.  Failure  will 
compel  us  to  drink  the  cup  of  humiliation  even  to  the  bitter  dregs  of 
having  the  history  of  our  struggle  written  by  New-England  historians" 

The  same  lack  of  moral  courage  to  face  the  inevitable  and  deal 
frankly  with  friends  and  supporters  was  still  more  palpably  shown  by 
Jefferson  Davis  when  he  sent  a  message  to  the  Confederate  Congress 
on  March  13,  three  weeks  before  the  fall  of  Richmond,  in  a  tone 
similar  to  that  of  the  famous  address.  Even  after  he  was  a  fugitive, 
and  the  Capital  of  the  Confederacy  was  in  the  possession  of  the 
Union  Army,  Mr.  Davis  halted  long  enough  at  Danville,  to  issue 
a  proclamation  in  which  he  said,  "  We  have  now  entered  upon  a  new 
phase  of  the  struggle.  Relieved  from  the  necessity  of  guarding  par- 
ticular points,  our  army  will  be  free  to  move  from  point  to  point  to 
strike  the  enemy  in  detail  far  from  his  base.  Let  us  but  will  it,  and 
we  are  free.  .  .  .  Let  us  not  despond,  my  countrymen,  but,  relying 
on  God,  meet  the  foe  with  fresh  defiance,  with  unconquered  and  un- 
conquerable hearts."  It  is  clearly  established  that  Mr.  Davis  was 
fully  aware  of  the  state  of  affairs  when  he  issued  this  misleading 
and  inexcusable  proclamation.  Four  days  after  its  publication  the 
army  upon  which  he  relied  even  for  personal  protection  surrendered 
to  General  Grant,  and  Mr.  Davis  again  sought  safety  in  flight. 

These  extravagant  misrepresentations  do  infinite  damage  to  the 
Confederate  cause  and  to  the  Confederate  leaders  in  history.  They 
reveal  in  strong  light  the  method  by  which  those  leaders  were 
willing  to  impose  and  actually  did  impose  upon  the  almost  unlimited 
credulity  of  the  white  population  of  their  States.  Prejudice  on  the 
question  of  slavery  could  be  easily  stimulated,  and  no  effort  was 
spared  to  poison  the  minds  of  the  Southern  people  against  the  Na- 
tional Government  and  against  the  Northern  people.  But  the 
exaggerations  at  the  close  of  the  struggle  were  no  greater  than  those 
which  had  been  employed  at  its  commencement.  From  beginning 
to  end  the  Rebellion  was  based  upon  the  suppression  gf  that  which 
was  true  and  the  suggestion  of  that  which  was  untrue.  To  mete 
out  the  proper  share  of  responsibility  to  the  leaders  who  organized 
the  insurrection  would  be  a  task  at  once  ungracious  and  impossible. 
The  aggressive  character  of  the  movement  was  not  concealed,  and 
the  motives  underlying  it  were  understood.  That  which  was  not 
understood,  and  which  still  remains  to  be  accounted  for,  was  the 


MUSTERING  OUT  OF  THE  UNION  ARMY.  27 

conduct  of  the  thousands  of  Southern  Unionists  who  did  not  express 
their  opinions  and  maintain  their  faith  with  the  firmness  and  effect- 
iveness which  had  been  widely  hoped  for  and  expected  in  the  North. 
From  the  timidity  of  the  friends  of  the  Union  and  the  boldness  of 
the  advocates  of  Secession,  it  is  not  difficult  to  understand  how  the 
large  class  of  poor  whites  in  the  South  could  be  urged  into  a  contest 
in  which  every  blow  struck  by  them  was  in  support  of  a  system  to 
whose  baleful  influence  they  owed  their  own  ignorance,  their  social 
degradation,  their  pitiable  poverty. 


The  wonder  excited  by  the  raising  of  the  vast  army  which  saved 
the  Union  from  destruction  was  even  surpassed  by  the  wonder  ex- 
cited by  its  prompt  and  peaceful  dissolution.  On  the  day  that  the 
task  of  disbandment  was  undertaken,  the  Army  of  the  United  States 
bore  upon  its  rolls  the  names  of  one  million  five  hundred  and  sixteen 
men  (1,000,516).  The  killed,  and  those  who  had  previously  retired 
on  account  of  wounds  and  sickness  and  from  the  expiration  of  shorter 
terms  of  service,  aggregated,  after  making  due  allowance  for  re-en- 
listments of  the  same  persons,  at  least  another  million.  The  living 
among  these  had  retired  gradually  during  the  war,  and  had  resumed 
their  old  avocations,  or,  in  the  great  demand  for  workmen  created 
by  the  war  itself,  had  found  new  employment.  But  with  the  close 
of  hostilities  many  industries  which  had  been  created  by  the  de- 
mands of  war  ceased,  and  thousands  of  men  were  thrown  out  of 
employment.  The  disbandment  of  the  Volunteer  Army  would 
undoubtedly  add  hundreds  of  thousands  to  this  number,  and  thus 
still  further  overstock  and  embarrass  the  labor-market.  The  pros- 
pect was  not  encouraging,  and  many  judicious  men  feared  the  result. 

Happily  all  anticipations  of  evil  proved  groundless.  By  an  in- 
stinct of  self-support  and  self-adjustment,  that  great  body  of  men  who 
left  the  military  service  during  the  latter  half  of  the  year  1865  and 
early  in  the  year  1866  re-entered  civil  life  with  apparent  content- 
ment and  even  with  certain  advantages.  Their  experience  as  sol- 
diers, so  far  from  unfitting  them  for  the  duties  and  callings  of  an  era 
of  Peace,  seem  rather  to  have  proved  an  admirable  school,  and  to 
have  given  them  habits  of  promptness  and  punctuality,  order  and 
neatness,  which  added  largely  to  their  efficiency  in  whatever  field 
they  were  called  to  labor.  After  the  Continental  Army  was  dis- 


28  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

solved,  its  members  were  found  to  be  models  of  industry  and  intelli- 
gence in  all  the  walks  of  life.  The  successful  mechanics,  the  thrifty 
tradesmen,  the  well-to-do  farmers  in  the  old  thirteen  States  were 
found,  iii  great  proportion,  to  have  held  a  commission  or  carried  a 
musket  in  the  Army  of  the  Revolution.  They  were,  moreover,  the 
strong  pioneers  who  settled  the  first  tier  of  States  to  the  westward,  and 
laid  the  solid  foundation  which  assured  progress  and  prosperity  to 
their  descendants.  Their  success  as  civil  magistrates,  as  legislators, 
as  executives  was  not  less  marked  and  meritorious  than  their  illus- 
trious service  in  war.  The  same  cause  brought  the  same  result  a 
century  later  in  men  of  the  same  blood  fighting  with  equal  valor  the 
same  battle  of  Constitutional  liberty.  The  inspiration  of  a  great 
cause  does  not  fail  to  ennoble  the  humblest  of  those  who  do  battle 
in  its  defense.  Those  who  stood  in  the  ranks  of  the  Union  Army 
have  established  this  truth  by  the  twenty  years  of  honorable  life 
through  which  they  have  passed  since  their  patriotic  service  was 
crowned  with  victory. 

The  officers  who  led  the  Union  Army  throughout  all  the  stages 
of  the  civil  conflict  were  in  the  main-  young  men.  This  feature  has 
been  a  distinguishing  mark  in  nearly  all  the  wars  in  which  the 
American  people  have  taken  part,  and  with  a  few  notable  exceptions 
has  been  the  rule  in  the  leading  military  struggles  of  the  world. 
Alexander  the  Great  died  in  his  thirty-second  year.  Csesar  entered 
upon  the  conquest  of  Gaul  at  forty.  Frederick  the  Great  was  the 
leading  commander  of  Europe  at  thirty-three.  Napoleon  and  Wel- 
lington, born  the  same  year,  fought  their  last  battle  at  forty-six  years 
of  age.  On  the  exceptional  side  Marlborough's  greatest  victories 
were  won  when  he  was  nearly  sixty  (though  he  had  been  brilliantly 
distinguished  at  twenty-two),  and  in  our  own  day  the  most  skillful 
campaign  in  Europe  was  under  the  direction  of  Von  -Moltke  when 
he  was  in  the  seventieth  year  of. his  age. 

Washington  took  command  of  the  Continental  Army  at  forty 
three.  Lafayette  was  a  major-general  at  twenty.  Nathaniel  Greene 
was  a  general  officer  in  the  military  establishment  of  the  Revolution 
at  thirty-three,  and  entered  upon  his  memorable  campaign  in  the 
South  at  thirty-eight.  Winfield  Scott  was  but  twenty-eight  when 
he  commanded  at  Chippewa  and  Lundy's  Lane.  Macomb  was 
thirty-two  when  he  gained  the  famous  victory  over  Sir  George 
Prevost  at  Plattsburg.  Jackson  was  forty-seven  when  he  won  the 
decisive  battle  over  Pakenham  at  New  Orleans.  On  the  other  hand, 


AGE  OF  UNION  COMMANDERS.  29 

Taylor  was  sixty-three  when  he  conquered  at  Buena  Vista,  and  Scott 
was  sixty-one  when  he  made  his  celebrated  march  from  Vera  Cruz 
to  the  Capital.  Scott  enjoys  the  rare  distinction  of  having  held 
high  and  successful  command  in  two  wars  which  were  a  full  genera- 
tion of  men  apart.  In  1847  he  commanded  in  Mexico  the  sons  of 
those  officers  who  aided  in  his  brilliantly  successful  campaign  against 
the  British  on  the  borders  of  Canada  in  1814. 

At  the  opening  of  the  war  of  the  Rebellion  General  Scott  again 
assumed  command,  but  his  seventy-five  years  pressed  heavily  upon 
him,  and  he  soon  gave  way  to  younger  men  who  came  rapidly  for- 
ward with  patriotic  ardor  and  with  worthy  ambition.  Nearly  all  the 
graduates  of  the  United-States  Military  Academy  who  achieved  dis- 
tinction were  in  what  might  be  termed  their  middle  youth ;  a  few 
were  in  their  twenties ;  none  were  old.  General  Grant  won  his  cam- 
paign of  the  Tennessee,  and  fought  the  battles  of  Henry,  Donelson, 
and  Shiloh  when  he  was  thirty-eight  years  of  age.  Sherman  entered 
upon  his  onerous  work  in  the  South-West  when  he  was  forty-one,  and 
accomplished  the  march  to  the  sea  when  he  was  forty-four.  Thomas 
began  his  splendid  career  in  Kentucky  when  he  was  forty-three,  and 
fought  the  critical  and  victorious  battle  of  Nashville  when  he  was 
forty-six.  Sheridan  was  but  thirty-three  when  he  confirmed  a  reputa- 
tion, already  enviable,  by  his  great  campaign  of  1864  -in  the  Shenan- 
doah  Valley.  Meade  won  the  decisive  battle  of  Gettysburg  when  he 
was  forty-seven.  McClellan  was  but  thirty-five  when  he  succeeded 
General  Scott  in  command  of  the  army.  McDowell  was  forty-five 
when  he  fought  the  first  battle  of  magnitude  in  the  war.  Buell  was 
forty-two  when  he  joined  his  forces  with  Grant's  army  on  the  second 
day's  fight  at  Shiloh.  Pope  was  scarcely  over  forty  when  he  attained 
the  highest  credit  for  his  success  in  the  South-West.  Hancock  was 
forty-one  when  he  approved  himself  one  of  the  most  brilliant  com- 
manders in  the  army  by  his  superb  bearing  on  the  field  of  Spottsyl- 
vania.  Hooker  was  forty-six  when  he  assumed  command  of  the 
Army  of  the  Potomac. 

General  Schofield  was  thirty-four  when  he  commanded  with 
signal  ability  and  success  in  the  battle  of  Franklin.  John  Reynolds 
was  forty-three  when  he  fell  at  the.  head  of  his  corps  in  the  first 
day's  fight  at  Gettysburg.  Rosecrans  was  forty-two  when  he  gained 
the  important  victory  at  Stone  River.  Burnside  was  thirty-seven 
when  he  made  the  admirable  record  of  his  North-Carolina  campaign. 
Howard  was  thirty-two  when  he  was  assigned  to  the  command  of  a 


30  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

corps,  and  only  a  year  older  when  he  succeeded  McPherson  in  the 
command  of  the  army  of  the  Tennessee.  McPherson  was  thirty-five 
when  he  gave  up  his  heroic  life  on  the  bloody  field  before  Atlanta. 
Slocum  was  an  able  corps-commander  at  thirty-two.  William  F. 
Smith  was  thirty-eight  when  he  handled  his  division  with  consummate 
skill  at  White-Oak  Swamp.  Joseph  J.  Reynolds  was  a  major-general 
before  he  was  forty.  Parke  was  at  the  head  of  a  corps  when  he  was 
thirty-five.  Hazen  was  thirty-four  when  he  led  in  the  important  cap- 
ture of  Fort  McAllister.  MeKenzie,  Ouster,  Kilpatrick,  and  Ames 
had  each  won  his  star  before  he  had  passed  his  twenty-sixth  year. 
The  only  West-Point  man  who  became  conspicuous  in  the  command 
of  troops  after  he  was  fifty  years  of  age  was  David  Hunter.  He  en- 
tered upon  his  sixtieth  year  on  the  day  of  the  unfortunate  battle  of 
Bull  Run,  and  engaged  thenceforth  in  severe  and  meritorious  field- 
service.  Montgomery  0.  Meigs,  one  of  the  ablest  graduates  of  the 
Military  Academy,  was  kept  from  the  command  of  troops  by  the  inesti- 
mably important  services  he  performed  as  quartermaster-general,  in 
which  office  he  succeeded  Joseph  E.  Johnston  when  the  latter  cast  his 
fortunes  with  the  Confederacy.  Perhaps  in  the  military  history  of  the 
world  there  was  never  so  large  an  amount  of  money  disbursed  upon 
the  order  of  a  single  man  as  by  the  order  of  General  Meigs.  The 
aggregate  sum  could  not  have  been  less  during  the  war  than  fifteen 
hundred  millions  of  dollars,  accurately  vouched  and  accounted  for  to 
the  last  cent.  General  Meigs  is  still  living,  vigorous  in  mind  and 
body,  active  in  good  works,  and  enjoying  the  unstinted  confidence 
and  admiration  of  his  countrymen. 

Among  the  officers  who  volunteered  from  civil  life  the  success  of 
young  men  as  commanders  was  not  less  marked  than  among  the 
graduates  of  West  Point.  General  Logan,  to  whom  is  conceded  by 
common  consent  the  leading  reputation  among  volunteer  officers,  and 
who  rose  to  the  command  of  an  .army,  went  to  the  field  at  thirty-five. 
General  Butler  was  forty-two  wh^n  he  was  placed  at  the  liead  of  the 
Army  of  the  Gulf,  and  began  his  striking  career  in  Louisiana.  Gen- 
eral Banks  was  forty-four  when  with  the  rank  of  major-general  he 
took  command  of  the  Department  of  Maryland.  Alfred  Terry,  since 
distinguished  in  the  regular  service,  achieved  high  rank  as  a  volunteer 
at  thirty-five.  Garfield  was  a  major-general  at  thirty-one  with  bril- 
liant promise  as  a  soldier  when  he  left  the  field  to  enter  Congress. 
Frank  Blair  at  forty-one  was  a  successful  commander  of  a  division  in 
the  arduous  campaign  which  ended  with  the  fall  of  Vicksburg. 


AGE  OF  UNION  COMMANDERS.  31 

Jacob  D.  Cox  had  achieved  his  reputation  in  the  field  at  thirty-four. 
Sickles  was  forty-one  when,  desperately  wounded,  he  was  borne  from 
the  head  of  his  corps  at  Gettysburg.  Cadwallader  Washburn  in  his 
forty-third  year  was  in  command  of  an  important  district  in  the 
South-West.  Rawlins  was  high  in  General  Grant's  confidence  and 
favor  at  thirty  when  he  filled  the  important  post  of  chief  of  staff. 
James  B.  Steedman  was  forty-four  when  he  received  Mr.  Lincoln's 
special  encomium  for  bravery.  Franz  Sigel  was  in  command  of  a 
corps  before  he  was  thirty-five.  Crawford  was  thirty-three  when  his 
division  did  its  noble  work  at  Gettysburg.  Chamberlain  was  thirty- 
four  when  he  associated  his  name  indelibly  with  the  defense  of  Little 
Round-Top.  Corse  was  but  twenty-nine  when  he  held  the  pass  at 
Altoona.  Beaver  was  still  younger  when  he  received  his  terrible 
wound  and  his  promotion.  Grenville  Dodge  had  risen  to  the  rank 
of  a  major-general  and  approved  his  merit  in  the  Atlanta  campaign 
before  he  was  thirty-three.  Hawley  did  splendid  service  in  the  field 
at  thirty-five,  and  rose  rapidly  to  the  rank  of  brigadier-general. 
Gresham  had  made  his  brave  record  at  thirty-two,  and  bears  wounds 
to  attest  his  service.  The  McCooks  were  all  young,  all  gallant,  all 
successful.  Negley  was  a  major-general  before  he  was  forty.  John 
Beatty  was  a  brigadier-general  at  thirty-two.  Robert  Potter  com- 
manded a  corps  before  he  was  thirty-seven.  Joseph  B.  Carr  achieved 
an  honorable  reputation  in  his  early  thirties.  Hartranft  was  highly 
distinguished  before  he  was  thirty-seven.  Nelson  A.  Miles  left  his 
counting-room  at  twenty-one,  enlisted  as  a  private,  and  in  two  years 
was  a  brigadier-general.  Selden  Connor  was  rewarded  with  the  same 
rank  for  his  conduct  at  the.  battle  of  the  Wilderness  before  he  was 
twenty-seven.  Nicholas  L.  Anderson  was  under  thirty  when  he 
received  his  brevet  of  major-general  for  a  military  career  worthy  in 
all  respects  of  his  eminent  kinsman  who  fired  the  first  gun  in  defense 
of  the  Union.  The  only  general  of  volunteers  beyond  fifty  years  of 
age  who  acquired  special  distinction  was  James  S.  Wadsworth  who 
in  his  fifty-seventh  year  fell  in  one  of  the  most  sanguinary  battles 
of  the  war. 

The  list,  both  of  regulars  and  volunteers,  who  achieved  high 
command  while  still  young,  might  be  largely  increased.  The  names 
given  are  selected  from  a  roll  of  honor  that  has  never  been  sur- 
passed for  gallantry  of  spirit  and  intrepidity  of  action  in  the  military 
service  of  any  country,  —  a  roll  too  long  to  have  full  justice  done  to 
all  the  names  borne  upon  it.  Indeed,  one  of  the  obstacles  to  wide- 


32  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

spread  popular  fame  for  many,  was  in  the  great  number  of  generals 
who  fairly  earned  the  laurels  due  to  exalted  heroism.  In  a  mili- 
tary establishment  so  vast  that  the  major-generals  number  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty,  and  the  generals  of  brigade  nearly  or  quite  six 
hundred,  with  battles,  engagements,  and  skirmishes  in  full  propor- 
tion to  the  force  which  such  a  number  of  commanders  implies,  it  is 
difficult  to  give  even  the  names  of  all  who  are  worthy  of  lasting 
renown.  Battles  such  as  established  Scott's  fame  in  the  Niagara 
campaign,  or  Jackson's  at  New  Orleans,  or  Taylor's  at  Buena  Vista, 
were  in  magnitude  repeated  a  hundred  times  during  the  civil  conflict 
under  commanders  whose  names  are  absolutely  forgotten  by  the 
public.  A  single  corps  of  Grant's  army  at  the  Wilderness,  or  of 
Sherman's  at  Atlanta,  or  of  Meade's  at  Gettysburg,  or  of  McClellan's 
on  the  Peninsula,  or  of  Hooker's  at  Chancellorsville,  contained  a 
larger  number  of  troops  than  Washington  or  Scott  ever  commanded 
on  the  field,  a  larger  number  than  Taylor  or  Jackson  ever  saw 
mustered.  A  more  correct  conception  of  the  real  magnitude  of 
the  Union  Army  can  be  reached  by  measuring  the  proportions 
of  the  several  branches  of  the  service,  than  by  simply  stating  the 
aggregate  number  of  men.  There  were  in  all  some  seventeen  hun- 
dred regiments  of  infantry,  over  two  hundred  and  seventy  regiments 
of  cavalry,  and  more  than  nine  hundred  batteries  of  artillery.  These 
numbers  are  without  parallel  in  the  military  history  of  the  world. 

There  was  a  very  strong  and  patriotic  disposition  to  engage  in 
the  war,  on  the  part  of  the  sons  of  the  Northern  statesmen  who  had 
been  prominent  during  the  generation  preceding  the  outbreak  of 
hostilities.  It  was  no  doubt  felt  by  the  juniors  to  be  a  chivalric  duty 
to  defend  on  the  field  what  had  been  advanced  by 'the  seniors  in 
Congress  and  in  Cabinet.  A  very  notable  instance  was  that  of  the 
brothers  Ewing,  —  Hugh,  Thomas,  and  Charles,  sons  of  the  eminent 
Thomas  Ewing  of  Ohio,  —  each  of  whom  attained  through  gradual 
promotion,  fairly  earned  by  meritorious  service  in  the  field,  the  rank 
of  •  brigadier-general.  They  were  all  young,  the  eldest  not  being 
over  thirty-five  when  he  received  his  commission,  the  youngest  under 
thirty.  Senator  Fessenden  of  Maine  had  two  sons  who  rose  to  the 
rank  of  brigadier-general;  a  third  with  the  rank  of  captain,  was 
killed  in  the  second  battle  of  Bull  Run.  Vice-President  Hamlin  had 
one  son  who  attained  the  rank  of  brigadier-general;  another  who 
served  as  colonel.  William  H.  Seward,  jun.,  also  reached  the  rank 
of  brigadier-general.  William  II.  Harris,  son  of  Mr.  Seward's  sue- 


REGULAR  AND  VOLUNTEER  OFFICERS.  33 

cessor  in  the  Senate,  honorably  distinguished  himself  in  the  service. 
Benjamin  Harrison  of  Indiana  commanded  a  brigade  before  he  was 
thirty,  and  made  a  military  record  which  did  honor  to  the  illustrious 
name  which  he  inherits.  Fletcher  Webster  lost  his  life  while  bravely 
commanding  a  Massachusetts  regiment  in  a  war  which  his  illustrious 
father's  exposition  of  the  Constitution  had  nerved  the  arm  of  the 
Government  to  maintain.  Similar  instances  in  the  Union  Army 
might  be  cited  in  great  number.  The  same  disposition  was  mani- 
fested on  the  Confederate  side,  and  it  may  be  said  with  truth  that 
almost  every  name  which  grew  into  prominence  in  the  long  political 
contention  between  the  North  and  the  South  was*  represented  in  the 
conflict  of  arms  to  which  it  led. 

That  men  without  previous  military  education  should  prove  to  be 
intelligent,  brave,  efficient,  and  skillful  officers,  was  a  constant  sur- 
prise to  the  foreign  critics  of  our  campaigns.  The  commanders  of 
batteries,  of  regiments,  of  brigades,  not  to  speak  of  battalions  and 
companies,  were  almost  wholly  from  the  volunteer  service.  Many 
of  the  volunteers,  as  already  indicated,  rose  to  the  command  of 
divisions,  a  few  to  the  command  of  corps,  and  in  some  marked  in- 
stances to  the  command  of  separate  armies  and  to  the  military  direc- 
tion of  vast  districts.  At  the  same  time  the  value  of  strict  military 
training  was  shown  by  the  superior  prominence  attained  in  propor- 
tion to  their  numbers  by  the  officers  who  had  been  educated  at  the 
West  Point  Military  Academy.  The  wisdom  of  maintaining  that 
institution  was  abundantly  vindicated  by  the  results  of  the  war.  Its 
graduates  worked  in  harmony  with  the  volunteers,  and,  as  matter 
of  fact,  the  field  offices  they  held  during  the  war  were,  with  few 
exceptions,  under  the  law  for  the  organization  of  the  volunteer 
forces.  They  imparted  to  the  entire  army  the  discipline,  the  organ- 
ization, and  the  efficiency  of  a  regular  military  establishment.  There 
was  naturally  at  the  beginning  of  the  war  a  certain  jealousy  between 
the  regulars  and  the  volunteers,  but  none  that  did  not  yield  to  the 
patriotism  and  good  sense  of  both.  The  two  services  were  rapidly 
and  most  happily  combined,  and  demonstrated  by  their  joint  prowess 
the  strength  of  the  country  for  defense,  and,  if  need  be,  for  offense. 
Without  maintaining  a  large  military  establishment,  which  besides 
its  expense  entails  multiform  evils,  it  was  shown  that  the  Republic 
possesses  in  the  strong  arms  and  patriotic  hearts  of  its  sons  an  un- 
failing source  of  military  power. 

VOL.  II.  3 


CHAPTER    III. 

THE  RECONSTRUCTION  PROBLEM.  —  THE  PRESIDENT'S  PUBLIC  ADDRESSES.  —  TIME  FOR 
ACTION  ARRIVED.  —  PROCLAMATION  DECLARING  HOSTILITIES  CEASED.  —  MANNER  OF 

DEALING  WITH  INSURRECTIONARY  STATES.— MR.  LINCOLN'S  FlRST  EFFORTS  AT  RE- 
CONSTRUCTION. —  ELECTION  IN  LOUISIANA.  —  FLANDERS  AND  HAHN.  —  MR.  LINCOLN'S 
NOTE  TO  GENERAL  SHEPLEY.  —  To  CUTHBERT  BULLETT.  —  MR.  LINCOLN'S  DEFINITE 
PLAN.  —  "  ONE-TENTH  "  OF  VOTERS  TO  ORGANIZE  LOYAL  STATE  GOVERNMENT.  — 
FREE-STATE  CONVENTION  IN  LOUISIANA.  —  MICHAEL  HAHN  ELECTED  GOVERNOR. — 
CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  —  MR.  LINCOLN'S  CONGRATULATIONS.  —  SIMILAR  AC- 
TION IN  ARKANSAS.  —  ISAAC  MURPHY  ELECTED  GOVERNOR.  —  REPRESENTATION  IN 
CONGRESS  DENIED  TO  THESE  STATES.  —  MR.  SUMNER'S  RESOLUTION.  —  ADOPTED 
BY  SENATE.  —  SIMILAR  ACTION  IN  HOUSE.  —  CONFLICT  BETWEEN  THE  PRESIDENT 
AND  CONGRESS.  —  CONGRESSIONAL  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION.  — THREE  FUNDA- 
MENTAL CONDITIONS.  —  BILL  PASSED  JULY  4, 1864.  —  NOT  APPROVED  BY  THE  PRESI- 
DENT. —  His  REASONS  GIVEN  IN  A  PUBLIC  PROCLAMATION.  —  SENATOR  WADE  AND 
H.  WINTER  DAVIS  CRITICISE  THE  PROCLAMATION.  —  THEIR  PROTEST.  —  SUBSEQUENT 
RESOLUTION  OF  CONGRESS.  —  THE  PRESIDENT'S  REPLY  TO  IT. —MR.  LINCOLN'S 
PROBABLE  COURSE  ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  RECONSTRUCTION. —  RECONSTRUCTION  OF 
THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  TENNESSEE.  —  THE  QUICK  PROCESS  OF  DOING.  —  RATIFIED  BY 
POPULAR  VOTE,  25,293  TO  48.  —  PARSON  BROWNLOW  CHOSEN  GOVERNOR.  —  PATTERSON 
AND  FOWLER  ELECTED  SENATORS.  —  JOHNSON'S  INAUGURATION  AS  VICE-PRESIDENT. 
—  His  SPEECH.  —  WERE  THE  REBEL  STATES  OUT  OF  THE  UNION  ?  — JOHNSON'S 
VIEWS.  —  MR.  LINCOLN'S  VIEWS.  —  RADICAL  AND  CONSERVATIVE." —  EXTRA  SESSION 
DEBATED.  —  ADVERSE  DECISION.  — ILL-LUCK  OF  EXTRA  SESSIONS. 

MR.  JOHNSON  continued  his  public  receptions,  his  interviews, 
and  his  speeches  for  nearly  a  month  after  his  accession  to  the 
Presidency  —  until  indeed,  in  the  judgment  of  his  most  anxious  and 
most  cautious  friends,  he  had  talked  too  much.  All  were  agreed 
that  the  time  had  now  come  when  he  must  do  something.  He  had 
evidently  sought  to  impress  the  country  with  the  belief  that  his 
Administration  was  to  be  marked  by  a  policy  of  extraordinary 
vigor,  that  the  standard  of  loyalty  was  to  be  held  high,  that  the 
leaders  of  the  Rebellion  were  to  be  dealt  with  in  a  spirit  of  stern 
justice.  His  position  gave  satisfaction  to  those  who  thought  the 
chief  conspirators  against  the  Union  could  not  be  punished  too 
severely ;  but  it  led  to  uneasiness  among  the  anti-slavery  philanthro- 
pists, lest,  in  wreaking  vengeance  upon  white  traitors,  the  President 


THE  PRESIDENT'S   PROCLAMATION.  35 

might  leave  the  loyal  negroes  unprotected  in  their  newly  acquired 
civil  rights. 

On  the  10th  of  May  the  President  issued  a  proclamation  declar- 
ing substantially  that  actual  hostilities  had  ceased,  and  that  "  armed 
resistance  to  the  authority  of  the  Government  in  the  insurrectionary 
States  may  be  regarded  at  an  end."  This  great  fact  being  officially 
recognized,  the  President  found  himself  face  to  face  with  the  momen- 
tous duty  of  bringing  the  eleven  States  of  the  Confederacy  into 
active  and  harmonious  relations  with  the  Government  of  the  Union. 
He  had  reached  the  point  where  he  must  take  the  first  step  in  the 
serious  task  of  Reconstruction,  and  the  country  awaited  it  with 
profound  interest.  He  had  in  other  official  stations  given  distinct 
intimations  of  the  conditions  which  he  considered  essential  to  the 
restoration  of  a  rebel  State  to  its  place  in  the  Union,  but  in  the 
numerous  speeches  he  had  delivered  since  his  accession  to  the  Presi- 
dency he  had  studiously  avoided  a  repetition  of  Kis  former  position, 
and  had  with  equal  care  refrained  from  a  public  committal  to  any 
specific  line  of  action. 

The  manner  in  which  the  insurrectionary  States  should  be  dealt 
with  at  the  close  of  hostilities  had  been  the  object  of  solicitous  in- 
quiry throughout  the  war.  It  was  indeed  often  a  question  of  angry 
disputation  in  Congress,  in  the  press,  and  among  the  people.  The 
tentative  and  somewhat  speculative  efforts  in  this  field,  which  had 
been  made  or  at  least  encouraged  by  Mr.  Lincoln,  had  confused  rather 
than  solved  the  problem,  and  yet  his  action  could  not  fail  to  exert 
an  embarrassing  and  possibly  a  decisive  influence  upon  the  course  of 
his  successor.  Difficult  as  it  might  have  proved  to  Mr.  Lincoln  him- 
self to  go  forward  on  the  line  he  had  marked  out,  it  would  obvi- 
ously prove  far  more  difficult  to  Mr.  Johnson  to  maintain  the  same 
policy  with  the  inevitable  result  of  renewing  the  conflict  with  Con- 
gress which  Mr.  Lincoln  had  only  allayed  and  postponed  —  not  re- 
moved. A  brief  review  of  what  Mr.  Lincoln  had  done  in  the  field 
of  Reconstruction  will  give  a  more  accurate  knowledge  of  President 
Johnson's  poliey,  which  afterwards  became  the  subject  of  prolonged 
and  bitter  controversy.  Mr.  Lincoln  had  naturally  been  anxious 
from  the  beginning  of  the  war  to  re-establish  civil  government  in 
any  and  every  one  of  the  Confederate  States  where  actual  resistance 
should  cease.  A  military  autocracy  controlling  people  who  were  en- 
gaged in  the  ordinary  avocations  of  life  was  altogether  contrary  to  his 
views  of  expediency,  altogether  repugnant  to  his  conceptions  of  right. 


36  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  COXGRESS. 

At  the  end  of  the  first  year  of  the  war  (April,  1862)  the  rebel 
fortifications  on  the  Lower  Mississippi  and  the  city  of  New  Orleans 
surrendered  to  the  guns  of  Farragut,  and  not  long  afterwards  a 
movement  was  made  to  re-establish  in  Louisiana  a  civil  government 
that  would  be  loyal  to  the  Union.  The  first  step  was  the  election  on 
the  third  of  December,  1862,  of  Benjamin  F.  Flanders  and  Michael 
Hahn,  old  citizens  of  Louisiana,  as  Representatives  in  Congress. 

On  the  9th  of  February,  1863,  when  the  Thirty-seventh  Congress 
was  drawing  to  its  close,  Messrs.  Flanders  and  Hahn  were  admitted 
to  their  seats,  though  not  without  contention  and  misgiving.  They 
had  been  chosen  at  an  election  ordered  by  the  military  governor  of 
Louisiana  (General  George  F.  Shepley),  and  their  credentials  bore 
the  signature  of  that  official.  General  Shepley  had  undoubtedly 
been  permitted,  if  not  specifically  authorized,  by  the  National  Admin- 
istration to  take  this  step ;  though  it  was  afterwards  perceived  by  all 
friends  of  the  Union  to  be  useless  if  not  mischievous,  and  its  repeti- 
tion for  the  ensuing  Congress  was  seriously  opposed.  On  the  21st  of 
November  —  only  a  fortnight  before  the  election  ordered  by  General 
Shepley  —  Mr.  Lincoln  addressed  him  a  note  which  in  effect  was  a 
warning  that  Federal  officers,  not  citizens  of  Louisiana,  must  not  be 
chosen  to  represent  the  State  in  Congress.  "  We  do  not,''  said  the 
President,  referring  to  the  South,  "particularly  need  members  of 
Congress  from  those  States  to  enable  us  to  get  along  with  legislation 
here.  What  we  do  want  is  the  conclusive  evidence  that  respectable 
citizens  of  Louisiana  are  willing  to  be  members  of  Congress  and  to 
swear  support  to  the  Constitution,  and  that  other  respectable  citi- 
zens are  willing  to  vote  for  them  and  send  them.  To  send  a  parcel 
of  Northern  men  here  as  representatives,  elected  as  would  be  under- 
stood (and  perhaps  really  so)  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet,  would  be 
disgraceful  and  outrageous." 

Previous  to  this  instruction  to  Governor  Shepley,  Mr.  Lincoln 
had  been  in  correspondence  with  Cuthbert  Bullett,  Esq.,  a  Southern 
gentleman,  who  enjoyed  his  personal  regard  and  confidence.  In  a 
letter  to  Mr.  Bullett  of  July  28,  1862,  the  President  reviewed  some 
of  the  impracticable  methods  of  re-establishing  civil  authority 
desired  by  certain  citizens  of  Louisiana  who  were  very  anxious  to 
prevent  any  interference  with  property  in  slaves.  Mr.  Thomas  J. 
Durant  was  the  spokesman  for  this  large  class  of  men  who  professed 
anxiety  for  the  fate  of  the  Union  but  were  unwilling  to  do  any  thing 
to  aid  in  saving  it.  Mr.  Lincoln's  letter  is  very  characteristic.  He 


EARLY  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  LOUISIANA.  37 

says,  "Mr.  Durant  speaks  of  no  duty,  apparently  thinks  of  none 
resting  upon  Southern  Union  men.  He  even  thinks  it  injurious  to 
the  Union  cause  that  they  should  be  restrained  in  trade  and  passage 
without  taking  sides.  They  are  to  touch  neither  a  sail  nor  a  pump, 
live  merely  as  passengers  ('  dead-heads '  at  that)  to  be  carried  snug 
and  dry  throughout  the  storm  and  safely  landed  right  side  up.  Nay, 
more,  even  a  mutineer  is  to  go  untouched,  lest  these  sacred  passen- 
gers receive  an  accidental  wound.  Of  course  the  Rebellion  will 
never  be  suppressed  in  'Louisiana  if  the  professed  Union  men  there 
will  neither  help  to  do  it  nor  permit  the  Government  to  do  it  with- 
out their  help.  .  .  .  What  would  you  do  in  my  position?  Would 
you  drop  the  war  where  it  is,  or  would  you  prosecute  it  in  the  future 
with  elder-stalk  squirts  charged  with  rose-water  ?  Would  you  deal 
lighter  blows  rather  than  heavier  ones?  Would  you  give  up  the 
contest  leaving  every  available  means  unapplied  ?  I  am  in  no  boast- 
ful mood :  I  shall  not  do  more  than  I  can,  but  I  shall  do  all  I  can  to 
save  the  Government,  which  is  my  sworn  duty  as  well  as  my  personal 
inclination.  I  shall  do  nothing  in  malice.  What  I  deal  with  is  too 
vast  for  malicious  dealing." 

The  pressure  of  these  political  events  in  Louisiana  had  increased 
Mr.  Lincoln's  desire  to  attempt  some  form  of  reconstruction,  and  the 
admission  of  Messrs.  Flanders  and  Hahn  to  seats  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  had  to  a  certain  degree  misled  him  as  to  the  temper 
and  tendency  of  Congress  on  the  whole  subject  of  re-establishing 
civil  government  in  the  insurrectionary  States.  During  the  year 
1862,  when  the  original  movements  were  made  in  Louisiana,  the 
military  situation  grew  so  critical  and  so  discouraging  that  the 
Administration  had  no  time  for  the  consideration  of  any  other  subject 
than  the  raising  of  men  and  money.  But  in  1863  the  Government 
was  incalculably  strengthened  by  General  Meade's  victory  at  Gettys- 
burg and  by  the  opening  of  the  Mississippi  River  to  navigation  in 
consequence  of  General  Grant's  capture  of  the  rebel  stronghold  at 
Vicksburg.  The  latter  event  practically  destroyed  the  military 
power  of  the  Rebellion  on  the  western  side  of  the  Mississippi,  and 
opened,  as  Mr.  Lincoln  hoped,  a  great  opportunity  for  the  formation 
of  State  governments  loyal  to  the  Union  and  able  to  aid  effectively 
in  the  overthrow  of  the  Rebellion. 

To  this  end  the  President  proposed  a  definite  plan  of  reconstruc- 
tion in  his  message  of  December  8, 1863,  sent  to  the  Thirty-eighth  Con- 
gress at  its  first  session.  He  accompanied  the  message  with  a  public 


38  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

proclamation  which  more  fully  embodied  his  conception  of  the  neces- 
sities of  the  situation  and  the  duties  of  the  loyal  people.  According 
to  the  message  of  the  President  "the  constitutional  obligation  to 
guarantee  to  every  State  in  the  Union  a  Republican  form  of  govern- 
ment and  to  protect  the  State  in  such  cases  is  explicit  and  full.  .  .  . 
This  section  of  the  Constitution  contemplates  a  case  wherein  the  ele- 
ments within  a  State  favorable  to  Republican  government  in  the 
Union  may  be  too  feeble  for  an  opposite  and  hostile  element  external 
to  or  even  within  the  State,  and  such  are  precisely  the  cases  with 
which  we  are  now  dealing.  An  attempt  to  guarantee  and  protect  a 
revived  State  government  constructed  in  whole  or  in  preponderating 
part  from  the  very  element  against  whose  hostility  and  violence  it  is 
to  be  protected  is  simply  absurd.  There  must  be  a  test  by  which  to 
separate  the  opposing  elements  so  as  to  build  only  from  the  sound, 
and  that  test  is  a  sufficiently  liberal  one  which  accepts  as  sound  who- 
ever will  make  a  sworn  recantation  of  his  former  unsoundness." 

In  his  proclamation  the  President  made  known  that  "  to  all  per- 
sons who  have  directly  or  by  implication  participated  in  the  existing 
rebellion  except  as  herein  after  excepted,  a  full  pardon  is  hereby 
granted  with  restoration  of  all  rights  of  property  except  as  to  slaves, 
upon  condition  that  every  such  person  shall  take  and  subscribe  an 
oath,  and  thenceforward  maintain  said  oath  inviolate,"  to  the  follow- 
ing effect :  viz.,  to  "  henceforth  faithfully  support  and  defend  the 
Constitution  and  the  Union  of  the  States  thereunder,"  and  to  abide 
by  all  laws  and  proclamations  "  made  during  the  existing  rebellion, 
having  reference  to  slaves,  so  long  and  so  far  as  not  modified  or  de- 
clared void  by  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court."  Those  excepted  from 
the  benefits  of  the  pardon  were  first  the  civil  and  diplomatic  officers 
of  the  Confederate  Government ;  second,  those  who  left  judicial  sta- 
tions in  the  United-States  Government  to  aid  the  rebellion ;  third, 
military  officers  of  the  Confederacy  above  the  rank  of  colonel,  and 
naval  officers  above  the  rank  of  lieutenant ;  fourth,  all  who  left  seats 
in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  to  aid  the  rebellion ;  fifth,  all 
who  left  the  National  Army  or  Navy  to  aid  the  rebellion ;  sixth, 
all  who  had  treated  colored  persons  found  in  the  military  or  naval 
service  of  the  United  States  otherwise  than  as  prisoners  of  war. 

The  President  was  willing  to  intrust  the  task  of  establishing  a 
State  government  to  a  population  whose  loyalty  to  the  Union  should 
be  tested  by  taking  the  prescribed  oath,  provided  that  the  population 
should  be  sufficiently  numerous  to  cast  a  vote  one-tenth  as  large  as 


EARLY  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  LOUISIANA.  39 

that  cast  at  the  Presidential  election  of  1860.  A  government  thus 
established,  the  President  declared,  "  shall  be  recognized  as  the  true 
government  of  the  State,  and  the  State  shall  receive  thereunder  the 
benefits  of  the  constitutional  provision  which  declares  that  the  United 
States  shall  guarantee  to  each  State  a  Republican  form  of  govern- 
ment." At  the  same  time  the  President  was  careful  to  affirm  that 
"whether  members  sent  to  Congress  from  any  State  shall  be  admitted 
to  seats  constitutionally  rests  exclusively  with  the  respective  Houses, 
and  not  to  any  extent  with  the  Executive." 

The  Union  men  in  Louisiana  had  been  so  encouraged  by  the  ad- 
mission of  Flanders  and  Hahn  to  seats  in  Congress,  that  they  were 
active  during  the  year  1863  in  maturing  schemes  for  re-establishing 
a  loyal  State  government.  But  the  decisive  step  was  not  taken  until 
the  opening  of  the  ensuing  year.  On  the  8th  of  January,  1864,  a 
large  Free-State  Convention  was  held  in  New  Orleans,  which  proved 
to  be  in  harmony  with  the  National  Administration  at  all  points, 
accepting  the  emancipation  policy  of  the  President  as  the  basis  of 
all  their  action.  General  Banks,  then  in  command  of  the  military 
district,  at  once  issued  a  proclamation  as  requested  by  the  conven- 
tion, appointing  an  election  for  State  officers  on  the  22d  of  February 
—  the  officers  chosen,  to  be  installed  on  the  4th  of  March.  Michael 
Hahn  was  elected  governor  as  the  especial  representative  of  the 
President's  firm  yet  cautious  and  moderate  policy.  B.  F.  Flanders 
and  C.  Roselius  were  the  opposing  candidates,  the  former  represent- 
ing a  more  radical  the  latter  a  more  conservative  policy  than  the 
President  was  willing  to  adopt. 

Mr.  Hahn  was  duly  installed  in  office  on  the  4th  of  March,  and  on 
the  15th  the  President  issued  an  order  declaring  the  new  governor  to 
be  u  invested  until  further  orders  with  the  powers  exercised  hitherto 
by  the  military  governor  of  Louisiana."  In  a  personal  note  to  Gov- 
ernor Hahn  at  the  same  time  the  President  said,  "  I  congratulate  you 
on  having  fixed  your  name  in  history  as  the  first  Free-State  Governor 
of  Louisiana.  Now  you  are  about  to  have  a  convention  which 
among  other  things  will  probably  define  the  elective  franchise.  I 
barely  suggest  for  your  private  consideration  whether  some  of  .the 
colored  people  may  not  be  let  in,  as  for  instance  the  very  intelligent 
and  especially  those  who  have  fought  gallantly  in  our  ranks.  They 
would  probably  help  in  some  trying  time  in  the  future  to  keep  the 
jewel  of  Liberty  in  the  family  of  Freedom."  The  form  of  the  clos- 
ing expression,  quite  unusual  in  Mr.  Lincoln's  compact  style,  may 


40  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

have  been  pleonastic,  but  his  meaning  was  one  of  deep  and  almost 
prophetic  significance.  It  was  perhaps  the  earliest  proposition  from 
any  authentic  source  to*  endow  the  negro  with  the  right  of  suffrage, 
and  was  an  indirect  but  most  effective  answer  to  those  who  subse- 
quently attempted  to  use  Mr.  Lincoln's  name  in  support  of  policies 
which  his  intimate  friends  instinctively  knew  would  be  abhorrent  to 
his  unerring  sense  of  justice. 

The  scheme  of  reconstruction  in  Louisiana  was  completed  by  the 
assembling  of  a  convention  to  form  a  constitution  for  the  State.  The 
convention  was  organized  early  in  April,  and  its  most  important  act 
was  the  prompt  incorporation  of  an  anti-slavery  clause  in  the  organic 
law.  By  a  vote  of  seventy  to  sixteen  the  convention  declared  slavery 
to  be  forever  abolished  in  the  State.  The  constitution  was  adopted 
by  the  people  on  the  fifth  day  of  the  ensuing  September  by  a  vote 
of  6,836  in  its  favor  to  1,566  against  it.  As  the  total  vote  of  Louisi- 
ana at  the  Presidential  election  of  1860  was  50,510,  the  new  State 
government  had  obviously  fulfilled  the  requirement  of  the  Presi- 
dent's proclamation  in  demonstrating  that  it  was  sustained  by  more 
than  one-tenth  of  that  number.  The  President's  scheme  had  there- 
fore so  far  succeeded  that  Louisiana  was  at  least  in  form  under  a 
loyal  government.  It  was,  however,  a  government  that  could  not 
sustain  itself  for  a  day  if  the  military  support  of  the  Nation  should 
be  withdrawn,  and  therein  lay  the  weakness  of  the  President's 
plan. 

The  action  of  Louisiana  was  accompanied,  indeed  in  some  parts 
preceded,  by  a  similar  action  in  Arkansas.  A  loyal  governor  (Isaac 
Murphy)  was  elected,  an  anti-slavery  constitution  adopted,  a  gov- 
ernment duly  installed  over  the  State,  and  senators  and  representa- 
tives in  Congress  were  elected  in  due  form.  These  successive  steps 
were  taken  in  the  early  spring  of  1864.  But  when  the  senators, 
Messrs.  Fishback  and  Baxter,  presented  themselves  for  admission  to 
the  body  to  which  they  were  thus  chosen,  it  was  found  that  Congress 
was  not  in  sympathy  with  what  was  derisively  termed  the  "  short- 
hand "  method  of  reconstruction  proposed  in  Mr.  Lincoln's  procla- 
mation. Mr.  Sumner,  when  the  credentials  were  presented,  offered 
a  resolution  declaring  that  "  a  State  pretending  to  secede  from  the 
Union,  and  battling  against  the  General  Government  to  maintain 
that  position,  must  be  regarded  as  a  rebel  State  subject  to  military 
occupation  and  without  representation  on  this  floor  until  it  has  been 
re-admitted  by  a  vote  of  both  Houses  of  Congress ;  and  the  Senate 


ARKANSAS  SENATORS  NOT  ADMITTED.  41 

will  decline  to  entertain  any  such  application  from  any  such  rebel 
State  until  after  such  a  vote  of  both  Houses." 

Mr.  Sumner's  resolution  embodied  a  radical  and  absolute  dissent 
from  the  President's  scheme  of  reconstruction.  The  Senate,  how- 
ever, was  not  quite  ready  for  so  emphatic  a  declaration,  and  the 
resolution  was  referred  with  the  credentials  to  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee. A  few  weeks  later,  on  the  27th  June  (1864),  the  committee 
made  a  report  covering  substantially  the  ground  of  Mr.  Sumner's 
resolution.  By  a  vote  of  twenty-seven  to  six  the  Senate  declared 
that  "  the  rebellion  is  not  so  far  suppressed  in  Arkansas  as  to  entitle 
that  State  to  representation  in  Congress,  and  therefore  Messrs. 
Fishback  and  Baxter  are  not  entitled  to  admission  as  senators." 
Similar  action  was  taken  in  the  House  —  the  representatives  not 
being  allowed  to  take  seats. 

The  conflict  between  the  President  and  Congress  on  the  subject 
of  reconstruction  was  made  still  more  apparent  by  the  further  action 
of  each.  After  the  Arkansas  case  had  been  disposed  of,  Congress 
passed  a  bill  embodying  its  own  views  of  the  proper  process  of  re- 
construction. By  this  measure  it  was  directed  that  the  President 
should  appoint  a  provisional  governor  for  each  of  the  States  -declared 
to  be  in  rebellion;  that  said  governor  should,  as  soon  as  military 
resistance  to  the  United  States  ceased,  make  an  enrolment  of  the 
white  male  citizens,  submitting  to  each  an  oath  to  support  the  Con- 
stitution. If  a  majority  of  the  citizens  should  take  and  subscribe 
the  oath,  the  governor  was  to  order  an  election  of  delegates  to  a 
constitutional  convention. 

It  was  made  the  duty  of  the  convention  as  its  initial  proceeding 
to  declare  on  behalf  of  the  people  of  the  State  their  submission  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  to  incorporate  in  their 
own  organic  law  three  fundamental  provisions :  First,  No  one  who 
has  held  any  office  under  the  Confederate  Government  except  civil 
offices  merely  ministerial,  or  military  office  below  the  rank  of  colonel, 
shall  vote  for  or  be  a  member  of  the  Legislature,  or  shall  vote  for  or 
be  elected  governor.  Second,  Involuntary  servitude  shall  be  forever 
prohibited,  and  the  freedom  of  all  persons  in  the  State  guarantied. 
Third,  No  debt,  State  or  Confederate,  created  in  aid  of  the  rebellion 
shall  ever  be  paid.  In  the  event  of  a  constitution  being  framed 
with  these  provisions  inserted,  and  then  adopted  by  a  majority  of 
the  popular  vote  as  already  enrolled,  the  governor  shall  certify  that 
fact  to  the  President,  and  thereupon  the  President,  after  obtaining 


42  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

the  assent  of  Congress,  shall  recognize  the  State  government  so  estab- 
lished as  a  legitimate  and  constitutional  government  competent  to 
elect  senators  and  representatives  in  Congress  and  electors  of  Presi- 
dent and  Vice-President. 

This  bill  was  passed  on  the  last  day  of  the  session,  July  4,  1864. 
It  was  commonly  regarded  as  a  rebuke  to  the  course  of  the  President 
in  proceeding  with  the  grave  and  momentous  task  of  reconstruc- 
tion without  waiting  the  action  or  invoking  the  counsel  of  Congress. 
Some  of  the  more  radical  members  of  both  Houses  considered  the 
action  of  the  President  as  beyond  his  constitutional  power,  and  they 
were  very  positive  and  peremptory  in  condemning  it.  But  Mr. 
Lincoln,  with  his  habitual  caution  and  wise  foresight,  had  specially 
avoided  any  form  of  guaranty,  or  even  suggestion  to  the  States 
whose  reconstruction  he  was  countenancing  and  aiding,  that  their 
senators  and  representatives  would  be  admitted  to  seats  in  Con- 
gress. Admission  to  membership  he  took  care  to  advise  them  was 
a  discretion  lodged  solely  in  the  respective  Houses.  What  he  had 
done  was  in  his  own  judgment  clearly  within  his  power  as  Comman- 
der-in-Chief  of  the  Armies  of  the  Union,  and  was  thus  obviously  and 
solely  an  Executive  act. 

Mr.  Lincoln  was  not  therefore  in  the  humor  to  be  rebuked  by 
Congress.  Though  the  least  pretentious  of  men,  he  had  an  abound- 
ing self-respect  and  a  full  appreciation  of  the  dignity  and  power  of 
his  office.  He  had  given  careful  study  to  the  duties,  the  responsi- 
bilities, and  the  limitations  of  the  respective  departments  of  the 
Government,  and  he  was  not  willing  that  his  judgment  should  be 
revised  or  his  course  censured,  however  indirectly,  by  a  co-ordinate 
branch  of  the  Government.  He  therefore  declined  to  sign  the  bill. 
He  did  not  veto  it  but  let  it  quietly  die.  Four  days  after  the  session 
had  closed,  he  issued  a  proclamation  in  which  he  treated  the  bill 
merely  as  the  expression  of  an  opinion  by  Congress  as  to  the  best 
plan  of  Reconstruction — "which  plan,"  he  remarked,  "it  is  now 
thought  fit  to  lay  before  the  people  for  their  consideration." 

The  President  further  stated  in  his  proclamation  that  he  had 
"  already  propounded  one  plan  of  restoration,"  and  that  he  was 
44  unprepared  by  a  formal  approval  of  this  bill  to  be  inflexibly  com- 
mitted to  any  single  plan  of  restoration,"  and  also  "  unprepared  to 
declare  that  the  Free-State  constitutions  and  governments  already 
adopted  and  installed  in  Louisiana  and  Arkansas  shall  be  set  aside 
and  held  for  naught,  thereby  repelling  and  discouraging  the  loyal 


THE  WADE  AND  DAVIS  CONTROVERSY.  43 

citizens  who  have  set  up  the  same  as  to  further  effort ; "  and  also 
"  unprepared  to  declare  a  constitutional  competency  in  Congress  to 
abolish  slavery  in  the  States  "  —  though  "  sincerely  hoping  at  the 
same  time  that  a  constitutional  amendment  abolishing  slavery  in  all 
the  States  might  be  adopted."  While  with  these  objections  Mr. 
Lincoln  could  not  approve  the  bill,  he  concluded  his  proclamation  in 
these  words:  "Nevertheless  I  am  fully  satisfied  with  the  plan  of 
restoration  contained  in  the  bill  as  one  very  proper  for  the  loyal 
people  of  any  State  choosing  to  adopt  it,  and  I  am  and  at  all  times 
shall  be  prepared  to  give  executive  aid  and  assistance  to  any  such 
people  so  soon  as  the  military  resistance  to  the  United  States  shall 
have  been  suppressed  in  any  such  State  and  the  people  thereof 
shall  have  sufficiently  returned  to  their  obedience  to  the  Constitution 
and  Laws  of  the  United  States  —  in  which  cases  military  governors 
will  be  appointed  with  directions  to  proceed  according  to  the  bill." 

It  must  be  frankly  admitted  that  Mr.  Lincoln's  course  was  in 
some  of  its  aspects  extraordinary.  It  met  with  almost  unanimous 
dissent  on  the  part  of  Republican  members  of  Congress,  and  violent 
opposition  from  the  more  radical  members  of  both  Houses.  If  Con- 
gress had  been  in  session  at  the  time,  a  very  rancorous  hostility 
would  have  been  developed  against  the  President.  Fortunately  the 
senators  and  representatives  had  returned  to  their  States  and  dis- 
tricts before  the  proclamation  was  issued,  and  they  found  the  people 
united  and  enthusiastic  in  Mr.  Lincoln's  support.  No  contest  was 
raised,  therefore,  by  the  great  majority  of  those  who  had  sustained 
the  bill  which  the  President  had  refused  to  approve.  The  pending 
struggle  for  the  Presidency  demanded  harmony,  and  by  common  con- 
sent agitation  on  the  question  was  abandoned.  Two  of  the  ablest, 
most  fearless,  most  resolute  men  then  in  public  life  —  Senator  Wade  of 
Ohio,  and  Representative  Henry  Winter  Davis  of  Maryland  —  were 
exceptions  to  the  general  rule  of  acquiescence.  They  were  respec- 
tively the  chairmen  in  Senate  and  House  of  the  "  Committees  on  the 
Rebellious  States,"  and  were  primarily  and  especially  responsible  for 
the  bill  which  the  President  criticised  in  his  proclamation.  They 
united  over  their  own  signatures  in  a  public  "  Protest "  against  the" 
action  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  The  paper  was  prepared  by  Mr.  Davis, 
which  of  itself  was  guaranty  that  it  would  be  able,  caustic,  and 
unqualified.  Mr.  Wade  was  known  to  be  a  man  of  extraordinary 
courage,  both  physical  and  moral.  To  these  qualities  Mr.  Davis 
added  a  highly  cultivated  mind  and  a  style  of  writing  which  in 


44  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

political  controversy  has  rarely  been  surpassed  —  a  style  at  once 
severe,  effective,  and  popular. 

The  "  Protest  "  embodied  a  sharp  contrast  between  the  President's 
plan  of  Reconstruction  in  his  proclamation  of  December  8  (1863), 
and  that  contained  in  the  bill  presented  by  Congress  for  his  approval. 
"  The  bill,"  said  Messrs.  Wade  and  Davis,  "  requires  a  majority  of 
the  voters  to  establish  a  State  government,  the  proclamation  is  satis- 
fied with  one-tenth ;  the  bill  requires  one  oath,  the  proclamation 
another ;  the  bill  ascertains  voters  by  registering,  the  proclamation 
by  guess ;  the  bill  exacts  adherence  to  existing  territorial  limits,  the 
proclamation  admits  of  others ;  the  bill  governs  the  rebel  States  by 
law  equalizing  all  before  it,  the  proclamation  commits  them  to  the 
lawless  discretion  of  military  governors  and  provost  marshals ;  the 
bill  forbids  electors  for  President  (in  the  rebel  States),  the  procla- 
mation with  the  defeat  of  the  bill  threatens  us  with  civil  war  for  the 
exclusion  of  such  votes." 

The  criticisms  of  the  President's  course  closed  with  the  language 
of  stern  admonition  if  not  indeed  of  absolute  menace.  The  act  of 
the  President  was  denounced  as  "rash  and  fatal,"  and  as  "a  blow  at 
the  friends  of  the  Administration,  at  the  rights  of  humanity,  and 
at  the  principles  of  Republican  government."  The  President  was 
warned  that  the  support  of  the  Republican  party  was  "  of  a  cause 
and  not  of  a  man,"  that  the  "  authority  of  Congress  is  paramount  and 
must  be  respected,"  that  the  "  whole  body  of  Union  men  of  Congress 
will  not  submit  to  be  impeached  by  him  of  rash  and  unconstitutional 
legislation,"  that  he  must  "confine  himself  to  his  Executive  duties 
—  to  obey  and  execute,  not  make  the  laws;"  that  he  "must  sup- 
press armed  rebellion  by  arms  and  leave  political  re-organization  to 
Congress." 

No  political  result  followed  the  publication  of  this  remarkable 
paper  save  that  it  probably  defeated  the  renomination  of  Mr.  Davis 
for  Congress.  The  Democrats  were  of  course  hostile  to  it  in  spirit 
and  in  letter,  and  the  leading  Republicans  saw  in  it  the  seeds  of 
a  controversy  between  the  President  and  Congress  which  might 
rapidly  grow  into  dangerous  proportions.  The  very  strength  of  the 
paper  was,  by  one  of  the  paradoxes  that  frequently  recur  in  public 
affairs,  its  special  weakness.  It  was  so  powerful  an  arraignment  of 
the  President  that  of  necessity  it  rallied  his  friends  to  his  support 
with  that  intense  form  of  energy  which  springs  from  the  instinct  of 
self-preservation.  It  was  at  once  seen  and  profoundly  realized  by  the 


THE  WADE  AND  DAYIS  CONTROVERSY.  45 

great  majority  of  the  loyal  people  that  even  if  the  President  had 
fallen  into  an  error,  no  result  could  possibly  flow  from  adhering  to  it 
that  would  prove  half  so  perilous  to  the  Union  cause  as  would  dis- 
sension and  division  in  the  ranks  of  those  who  were  relied  upon  to 
keep  the  Government  in  the  control  of  an  Administration,  devoted 
heart  and  soul  to  the  preservation  of  the  Union.  It  was,  they 
thought,  safer  to  follow  Mr.  Lincoln  who  had  all  the  power  in  his 
hands  than  to  follow  Messrs.  Wade  and  Davis  who  had  no  power  in 
their  hands. 

When  Congress  convened  in  December  (1864),  Mr.  Lincoln,  who 
had  meanwhile  been  re-elected  to  the  Presidency,  studiously  re- 
frained from  any  reference  in  his  annual  message  to  the  controversy 
over  his  proclamation.  With  the  intuitive  sagacity  and  caution 
which  never  failed  him,  he  did  not  touch  upon  the  question  of 
reconstruction.  He  had  foreseen  that  the  unhappy  differences  with 
which  the  close  of  the  previous  session  of  Congress  had  been  marked 
might  be  renewed,  and  thence  lead  the  party  into  warring  factions  if 
he  should  again  attempt  to  urge  his  own  views.  This  was  undoubt- 
edly a  disappointment  to  those  who  had  regarded  the  controversy 
with  the  President  as  only  postponed  till  the  assembling  of  Con- 
gress, and  who  were  impatiently  awaiting  its  renewal.  The  assumed 
views  of  the  President  were  antagonized  later  in  the  session  by  the 
passage  of  a  joint  resolution  "  declaring  certain  States  not  entitled  to 
representation  in  the  electoral  college."  This  was  done  to  cut  off 
the  electoral  votes  (should  any  such  votes  be  returned)  of  Louisi- 
ana and  Arkansas,  satirically  referred  to  by  the  opponents  of  the 
Administration  policy  as  Mr.  Lincoln's  "  ten  per  cent  States  "  —  in 
allusion  to  the  permission  given  to  one-tenth  of  the  population  to 
organize  a  State  government. 

The  passage  of  this  joint  resolution,  to  which  great  importance 
was  attached  by  the  critics  of  the  President,  was  met  by  Mr.  Lincoln 
in  a  spirit  and  with  a  tact  which  deprived  its  authors  of  all  sense  of 
triumph.  In  a  brief  special  message  (February  8, 1865)  the  President 
declared  that  he  had  "  signed  the  joint  resolution  in  deference  to  the 
view  of  Congress  implied  in  its  passage  and  presentation."  In  his 
own  view,  however,  the  two  Houses  of  Congress,  convened  under 
the  twelfth  article  of  the  Constitution,  "  have  complete  power  to  ex- 
clude from  counting  all  electoral  votes  deemed  by  them  to  be  illegal, 
and  it  is  not  competent  for  the  Executive  to  defeat  or  obstruct  the 
power  by  a  veto,  as  would  be  the  case  if  his  action  were  at  all  es- 


46  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

sential  to  the  matter."  The  President  further  informed  Congress 
that  "  he  disclaims  all  right  on  the  part  of  the  Executive  to  interfere 
in  any  way  in  the  matter  of  canvassing  or  counting  the  electoral 
votes,  and  he  also  disclaims  that  by  signing  said  resolution  he  has 
expressed  any  opinion  on  the  recitals  of  the  preamble  or  any  judg- 
ment of  his  own  upon  the  subject  of  the  resolution." 

The  message  was  indeed  throughout  a  sarcastic  reflection  upon 
the  action  of  Congress.  It  was  as  if  the  President  had  said,  "  You 
have  passed  a  resolution  making  certain  declarations  which  nobody 
controverts :  you  have  claimed  certain  powers  which  nobody  denies. 
If  I  should  sign  your  resolution  without  explanation,  it  might  imply 
my  right  to  veto  it,  and  thereby  take  from  you  your  undoubted 
Constitutional  power.  You  are  really  guilty  of  weakening  your 
own  prerogatives  under  the  Constitution  by  asking  me  to  assent  to 
their  existence.  If  you  intended  your  resolution  as  a  reflection  on 
my  policy  of  reconstruction,  you  might  have  spared  yourselves  the 
trouble,  for  that  policy  never  contemplated  the  slightest  violation 
of  the  rights  and  prerogatives  of  Congress."  The  message  through- 
out was  a  singularly  apt  illustration  of  that  keen  perception  and 
abounding  common  sense  which  made  Mr.  Lincoln  so  formidable  an 
antagonist  in  every  controversy  political  and  official  in  which  he 
became  involved.  His  triumph  was  complete  both  in  the  estimation 
of  Congress  and  of  the  people. 

.  Mr.  Lincoln  really  adhered  with  unexpected  tenacity  to  the  plan 
of  reconstruction  which  he  had  attempted,  and  which,  putting  aside 
the  opprobrious  names  applied  to  it,  was  called  by  himself  "The 
Louisiana  Plan."  He  had  stubbornly  maintained  his  ground  against 
the  almost  unanimous  protest  of  Republican  senators  and  represen- 
tatives, and  he  justified  himself  by  elaborate  argument.  He  had  been 
much  influenced  by  the  representations  made  by  General  Banks  who 
was  commander  of  the  Military  .District,  and  much  impressed  by  the 
perfect  faith  in  its  success  entertained  by  leading  men  of  the  State. 
In  the  last  speech  he  ever  made  (April  11,  1865),  referring  to  the 
twelve  thousand  men  who  had  organized  the  Louisiana  Government, 
the  President  said,  "  If  we  now  reject  and  spurn  them,  we  do  our 
utmost  to  disorganize  and  disperse  them.  We  say  to  the  white  man, 
you  are  worthless  or  worse.  We  will  neither  help  you  nor  be  helped 
by  you.  To  the  black  man  we  say,  this  cup  of  liberty  which  these, 
your  old  masters,  hold  to  your  lips,  we  will  dash  from  you,  and  leave 
you  to  the  chances  of  gathering  the  spilled  and  scattered  contents  in 


LOUISIANA  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION.  47 

some  vague  and  undefined  when  and  where  and  how.  If  this  course, 
discouraging  and  paralyzing  to  both  white  and  black,  has  any  ten- 
dency to  bring  Louisiana  into  proper  practical  relations  with  the 
Union,  I  have  so  far  been  unable  to  perceive  it.  If,  on  the  contrary, 
they  recognize  and  sustain  the  new  government  of  Louisiana,  the 
converse  of  all  this  is  made  true.  We  encourage  the  hearts  and 
nerve  the  arms  of  twelve  thousand  men  to  adhere  to  their  work  and 
argue  for  it,  and  proselyte  for  it,  and  fight  for  it,  and  grow  it, 
and  ripen  it  to  a  complete  success.  The  colored  man  too,  in  seeing 
all  united  for  him,  is  inspired  with  vigilance  and  with  energy  and 
daring  to  the  same  end.  Grant  that  he  desires  the  elective  franchise. 
He  will  yet  attain  it  sooner  by  saving  the  already  advanced  steps 
towards  it  than  by  running  backward  over  them.  Concede  that  the 
new  government  of  Louisiana  is  only  to  what  it  should  be  as  the  egg 
is  to  the  fowl,  we  shall  sooner  have  the  fowl  by  hatching  the  egg  than 
by  smashing  it." 

Mr.  Lincoln  described  also  at  some  length  the  process  by  which 
he  had  been  induced  to  try  the  Louisiana  plan.  Like  all  his  conclu- 
sions it  was  reached  after  much  consultation  and  serious  reflection. 
He  was  conscientiously  convinced  that,  all  things  considered,  it  was 
the  promptest  and  most  feasible  process  of  re-establishing  civil  gov- 
ernment in  the  insurrectionary  States.  Mr.  Lincoln  was  especially 
anxious  that  neither  the  ruling  power  nor  the  conquered  rebels  should 
by  needless  procrastination  become  accustomed  to  military  govern- 
ment —  a  form  of  administration  which  he  regarded  as  very  tempting, 
but  very  sure  to  undermine,  and  in  time  to  destroy,  the  real  spirit  of 
independence  and  self-government.  It  was  his  belief,  as  he  expressed 
it  himself,  that  "  We  must  begin  with  and  mold  from  disorganized  and 
discordant  elements,  nor  is  it  a  small  additional  embarrassment  that 
we,  the  loyal  people,  differ  among  ourselves  as  to  the  mode,  manner, 
and  measure  of  reconstruction.  As  a  general  rule  I  abstain  from  read- 
ing the  reports  of  attacks  upon  myself,  wishing  not  to  be  provoked  by 
that  to  which  I  cannot  properly  make  answer.  In  spite  of  this  precau- 
tion, however,  it  comes  to  my  knowledge  that  I  am  much  censured  for 
some  supposed  agency  in  setting  up  and  seeking  to  sustain  the  new 
State  Government  of  Louisiana.  In  this  I  have  done  just  so  much 
and  no  more  than  the  public  knows."  He  then  gave  somewhat  full 
details  of  the  successive  steps  he  had  taken  in  his  attempt  at  recon- 
struction,—  steps  already  detailed  with  precision  in  this  chapter. 
After  completing  his  recital  he  stated  with  entire  frankness  that  he 


48  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

had  done  nothing  else.  "Such,"  said  he,  uhas  been  my  only  agency 
in  setting  up  the  Louisiana  Government."  He  was  thus  explicit  be- 
cause certain  members  of  Congress,  in  the  excitement  caused  by  their 
hostility  to  the  President's  plan,  had  been  rash  enough  to  insinuate 
that  the  President  had  a  secret  understanding  with  certain  rebels, 
who,  as  soon  as  the  President's  hand  was  withdrawn,  would  turn  the 
control  of  the  State  over  to  the  unrepentant  Democracy  who  had 
been  so  active  in  precipitating  the  war. 

Concluding  his  remarks  to  an  audience  loath  to  leave  and  eager  to 
hear  every  word  from  lips  which  seemed  then  to  be  those  of  an  ora- 
cle, Mr.  Lincoln  dwelt  with  great  seriousness,  even  with  solemnity, 
upon  this  subject  which  now  wholly  engrossed  his  mind.  The  con- 
test of  arms  was  over,  but  the  President  realized  that  the  great  press- 
ure of  duty  which  had  been  weighing  him  down  was  not  removed 
by  the  coming  of  peace.  Its  character  was  changed,  its  exactions 
were  perhaps  less  urgent,  but  withal  he  felt  that  the  war  would  have 
been  in  vain  unless,  in  exchange  for  all  its  agonies  and  all  its  burdens, 
there  should  come  to  the  institutions  of  the  country  some  great  re- 
forms, and  to  the  people  a  new  baptism  of  patriotic  interest  and  phil- 
anthropic duty.  He  dwelt  with  deep  solicitude  on  the  situation  in 
the  rebellious  States,  and,  unable  to  speak  as  fully  as  he  desired,  said 
with  evident  emotion,  "  It  may  be  my  duty  to  make  some  new  an- 
nouncement to  the  people  of  the  South.  I  am  considering,  and  shall 
not  fail  to  act  when  satisfied  that  action  will  be  proper." 

The  "  new  announcement "  to  the  South  was  never  made.  Three 
days  after  it  was  promised,  Mr.  Lincoln  met  his  fate.  What  changes 
might  have  been  wrought  if  he  had  lived  to  make  the  promised 
exposition  can  only  be  surmised.  It  may  be  well  believed  however 
that  the  confidence  reposed  in  him  universally  in  the  North,  and  the  re- 
spect he  had  as  universally  won  in  the  South,  would  have  given  such 
commanding  power  to  his  counsel  as  would  have  seriously  influ- 
enced, if  not  promptly  directed^  the  mode  of  reconstruction.  Mr. 
Lincoln's  position  when  he  spoke  his  closing  words  was, very  different 
from  that  which  he  held  when  Senator  Wade  and  Henry  Winter 
Davis  ventured  upon  a  controversy  with  him  the  preceding  summer  — 
boldly  assailing  his  measures  and  challenging  his  judgment.  He  was 
at  that  time  a  candidate  for  re-election,  undergoing  harsh  criticism 
and  held  rigidly  accountable  for  the  prolongation  of  the  war.  Now 
he  stood  triumphant  in  every  public  relation  —  chosen  by  an  almost 
unprecedented  vote  to  his  second  term,  the  rebellion  conquered,  the 


LOUISIANA  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION.  49 

Union  firmly  re-established !  Never  since  Washington's  exalted  po- 
sition at  the  close  of  the  Revolution,  or  his  still  more  elevated  station 
when  he  entered  upon  the  Presidency,  has  there  been  a  man  in  the 
United  States  of  so  great  personal  power  and  influence  as  Mr. 
Lincoln  then  wielded. 

It  was  perhaps  not  unnatural  that  from  the  day  of  Mr.  Lincoln's 
death,  his  views  as  to  the  proper  mode  of  reconstruction  should  be- 
come a  subject  of  warm  dispute  between  the  partisans  of  different 
theories ;  yet  no  controversy  could  be  less  profitable  for  the  simple 
reason  that  it  was  absolutely  incapable  of  settlement.  Beyond  his 
experiment  with  the  "  Louisiana  plan  "  Mr.  Lincoln  had  never  given 
the  slightest  indication  either  by  word  or  deed  as  to  the  specific 
course  he  would  adopt  in  the  rehabilitation  of  the  insurrectionary 
States.  His  characteristic  anecdote  of  the  young  preacher  who  was 
exhorted  "  not  to  cross  '  Big  Muddy  '  until  he  reached  it "  was  a 
perfect  illustration  of  the  painstaking,  watchful  habit  in  which  he 
dealt  with  all  public  questions.  He  invariably  declined  to  anticipate 
an  issue  or  settle  a  question  before  it  came  to  him  in  its  natural, 
logical  order.  Louisiana  was  wholly  in  the  possession  of  the  Union 
troops  in  1862-3,  and  presented  a  question  that  to  his  view  had 
ripened  for  decision.  Hence  his  prompt  and  definite  procedure  in 
that  State.  Severely  challenged  for  what  his  accusers  deemed  a 
blunder,  Mr.  Lincoln  defended  himself  with  fair  and  full  statements 
of  fact,  and  was  apparently  justified  in  adopting  the  policy  he  had 
chosen.  He  had  fortified  his  own  judgment,  as  he  frankly  declared, 
"  by  submitting  the  Louisiana  plan  in  advance  to  every  member  of 
the  Cabinet,  and  every  member  approved  it."  His  "  promise  was  out," 
he  said,  to  sustain  this  policy,  but  "  bad  promises,"  he  significantly 
added,  "  are  better  broken  than  kept,  and  I  shall  treat  this  as  a  bad 
promise  and  break  it  whenever  I  shall  be  convinced  that  keeping  it 
is  adverse  to  the  public  interest." 

It  is  apparent  therefore  that  Mr.  Lincoln  had  no  fixed  plan  for  the 
reconstruction  of  the  States.  Pertinently  questioned  on  the  subject 
by  one  whose  personal  relations  entitled  him  to  unreserved  confidence, 
the  President  answered  by  one  of  his  homely  and  apt  illustrations : 
"The  pilots  on  our  Western  rivers  steer  from  point  to  point  as  they  call 
it  —  setting  the  course  of  the  boat  no  farther  than  they  can  see ;  and 
that  is  all  I  propose  to  myself  in  this  great  problem."  This  position 
was  practically  re-affirmed  in  the  speech  already  copiously  quoted. 
"  So  great  peculiarities  pertain  to  each  State,  and  such  important  and 
VOL.  II.  4 


50  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

sudden  changes  occur  in  the  same  State,  and  withal  so  new  and  so 
unprecedented  is  the  whole  case,  that  no  exclusive  and  inflexible  plan 
can  safely  be  prescribed  in  details  and  collaterals.  Such  exclusive 
and  inflexible  plan  would  only  become  a  new  entanglement."  Such 
was  the  latitude  of  judgment  which  the  President  reserved  to  himself, 
such  the  liberty  of  action  which  he  deemed  essential  to  the  complex 
problem,  for  whose  solution  there  was  no  prescribed  rule,  no  estab- 
lished precedent.  On  all  questions  of  expediency  the  President 
maintained  not  only  the  right  but  the  frequent  necessity  of  change. 
"  Principle  alone,"  said  he,  "  must  be  inflexible." 


Encouraged  by  the  result  of  the  controversy,  if  it  may  be  so 
termed,  between  the  President  and  Congress  as  to  the  mode  of 
reconstruction,  Andrew  Johnson  determined  to  re-organize  the  gov- 
ernment of  his  State.  Though  Vice-President-elect  he  was  still  dis- 
charging the  functions  of  military  governor  of  Tennessee.  A 
popular  convention,  originating  from  his  recommendation  and  as- 
sembling under  his  auspices,  was  organized  at  Nashville  on  the  ninth 
day  of  January,  1865.  Membership  of  the  body  was  limited  to  those 
who  "  give  an  active  support  to  the  Union  cause,  who  have  never 
voluntarily  borne  arms  against  the  Government,  who  have  never 
voluntarily  given  aid  and  comfort  to  the  enemy."  The  manifest 
purpose,  indeed  the  proclaimed  intention,  was  to  re-organize  the 
State,  so  as  to  bring  all  its  powers  distinctly  and  unreservedly  under 
the  control  of  that  small  minority  of  the  population  which  had  re- 
mained loyal  to  the  Government  of  the  Union.  The  preamble  which 
prefaced  their  action  cited  the  Declaration  of  Rights  in  the  consti- 
tution of  Tennessee  to  the  effect  that  "  all  power  is  inherent  in  the 
people,  and  the  people  have  an  inalienable  right  to  alter,  reform,  or 
abolish  the  Government  in  such  manner  as  they  may  think  proper." 
This  was  followed  by  a  declaration  which  might  well  be  viewed  as  a 
non  sequitur.  "Therefore,"  said  the  convention,  "a  portion  of  the  citi- 
zens of  the  State  of  Tennessee  and  of  the  United  States  of  America 
in  convention  assembled  do  propound  the  following  amendments  to 
the  Constitution,  which  when  ratified  by  the  sovereign,  loyal  people 
shall  be  and  constitute  a  part  of  the  permanent  constitution  of  the 
State  of  Tennessee." 

It  was  very  easy  by  strict  logic  to  state  grave  objections  to  this 


RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TENNESSEE.  51 

mode  of  procedure.  It  was  easy  to  say  that  "  a  portion  of  the  peo- 
ple "  did  not  constitute  "the  people  "  in  the  sense  in  which  the  phrase 
was  used  in  the  constitution  of  Tennessee.  It  was  easy  to  charge 
that  the  proposed  mode  of  proceeding  embodied  all  the  heresy  of 
the  Dorr  Rebellion  of  Rhode  Island  in  1842-43,  which  had  fallen 
under  the  animadversion  of  every  department  of  the  United-States 
Government.  But  in  answer  to  such  objections,  Governor  Johnson, 
and  those  who  co-operated  with  him,  could  urge  that  the  objections 
and  cavilings  of  all  critics  seemed  to  ignore  the  controlling  fact 
that  they  were  acting  in  a  time  of  war,  and  were  pursuing  the  only 
course  by  which  the  power  of  civil  government  in  Tennessee  could 
be  brought  to  the  aid  of  the  military  power  of  the  National  Govern- 
ment. Tennessee,  as  Johnson  bluntly  maintained,  could  only  be 
organized  and  controlled  as  a  State  in  the  Union  by  that  portion  of 
her  citizens  who  acknowledged  their  allegiance  to  the  Government 
of  the  Union. 

Under  this  theory  of  procedure  the  popular  convention  proposed 
an  amendment  to  the  State  constitution,  "forever  abolishing  and 
prohibiting  slavery  in  the  State,"  and  further  declaring  that  "the 
Legislature  shall  make  no  law  recognizing  the  right  of  property  in 
man."  The  convention  took  several  other  important  steps,  annul- 
ling in  whole  and  in  detail  all  the  legislation  which  under  Confed- 
erate rule  had  made  the  State  a  guilty  participant  in  the  rebellion. 
Thus  was  swept  away  the  ordinance  of  Secession,  and  the  State  debt 
created  in  aid  of  the  war  against  the  Union.  All  these  proceedings 
were  submitted  to  popular  vote  on  the  22d  of  February,  and  were 
ratified  by  an  affirmative  vote  of  25,293  against  a  negative  vote  of 
48.  The  total  vote  of  the  State  at  the  Presidential  election  of  1860 
was  145,333.  Mr.  Lincoln's  requirement  of  one-tenth  of  that  num- 
ber was  abundantly  complied  with  by  the  vote  on  the  questions  sub- 
mitted to  the  popular  decision.  Small  as  was  the  ratio  of  avowed 
Union  men  at  the  time,  Mr.  Johnson  argued  with  much  confidence 
that  Tennessee,  freed  from  coercion,  would  adhere  to  the  Union  by 
a  large  majority  of  her  total  vote.  His  faith  was  based  on  the  fact 
that  when  the  plain  and  direct  question  of  Union  or  Disunion  was 
submitted  to  the  people  in  the  winter  of  1860-61,  the  vote  for  the 
former  was  91,813,  and  for  the  latter  only  24,749. 

Under  this  new  order  of  things,  William  G.  Brownlow,  better 
known  to  the  world  by  his  soubriquet  of  "  Parson  "  Brownlow,  was 
chosen  governor  without  opposition  on  the  fourth  day  of  March, 


52  TWENTY  TEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

1865,  the  day  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  second  inauguration.  The  new  Legis- 
lature met  at  Nashville  a  month  later,  on  the  3d  of  April,  and  on  the 
5th  ratified  the  Thirteenth  Amendment ;  thus  adding  the  abolition  of 
slavery  by  National  authority  to  that  already  decreed  by  the  State. 
The  Legislature  completed  its  work  by  electing  two  consistent 
Union  men,  David  T.  Patterson  and  Joseph  S.  Fowler,  to  the 
United-States  Senate.  The  framework  of  the  new  Government  was 
thus  completed  and  in  operation  before  the  death  of  Mr.  Lincoln. 
It  had  not  received  the  recognition  and  approval  of  the  National 
Government  in  any  specific  or  direct  manner.  But  Andrew  Johnson 
was  inaugurated  as  Vice-President  on  the  4th  of  March,  and  the 
only  form  of  government  left  in  Tennessee  was  that  of  which 
Brownlow  was  the  acknowledged  head.  The  crucial  test  would  come 
when  the  senators  and  representatives,  elected  under  the  Brownlow 
government,  should  apply  for  their  seats  in  Congress. 

The  course  pursued  in  Tennessee  afforded  a  significant  index  to 
Mr.  Johnson's  conception  of  what  was  deemed  necessary  to  prepare 
a  State  that  had  been  in  rebellion,  for  its  full  rehabilitation  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Federal  Union.  His  position  was  rendered  still  more  pro- 
nounced and  positive  by  his  declarations  in  the  remarkable  speech 
delivered  by  him  when  he  took  the  oath  of  office  as  Vice-President: 
"  Before  I  conclude  this  brief  Inaugural  address  in  the  presence  of 
this  audience,  ...  I  desire  to  proclaim  that  Tennessee,  whose  repre- 
sentative I  have  been,  is  free.  She  has  bent  the  tyrant's  rod,  she  has 
broken  the  yoke  of  slavery,  she  stands  to-day  redeemed.  She  waited 
not  for  the  exercise  of  power  by  Congress  ;  it  was  her  own  act ;  and 
she  is  now  as  loyal,  Mr.  Attorney-General,  as  the  State  from  which 
you  come.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Federal  Constitution  that  no 
State  can  go  out  of  this  Union,  and,  moreover,  Congress  cannot  eject 
a  State  from  this  Union.  Thank  God,  Tennessee  has  never  been  out 
of  the  Union !  It  is  true  the  operations  of  her  government  were 
for  a  time  interrupted ;  there  was  an  interregnum ;  but  she  is  still 
in  the  Union,  and  I  am  her  representative.  This  day  (March  4, 
1865)  she  elects  her  Governor  and  her  Legislature,  which  will  be 
convened  on  the  first  Monday  of  April,  and  her  senators  and  repre- 
sentatives will  soon  mingle  with  those  of  her  sister  States ;  and  who 
shall  gainsay  it,  for  the  Constitution  provides  that  to  every  State 
shall  be  guarantied  a  Republican  form  of  government." 

The  very  positive  declaration  by  Mr.  Johnson  that  "  Tennessee 
has  never  been  out  of  the  Union  "  indicated  the  side  he  would  take 


RECONSTRUCTION  IN  TENNESSEE.  53 

in  a  pending  controversy  which  was  waxing  warm  between  the  dis- 
putants. Whether  the  act  of  Secession  was  void  db  initio  and  really 
left  the  State  still  a  member  of  the  Union,  or  whether  it  did,  how- 
ever wrongfully,  carry  the  State  out  of  the  Union  as  claimed  by 
those  engaged  in  the  Rebellion,  was  one  of  the  purely  abstract  po- 
litical questions  concerning  which  men  will  argue  without  ceasing,  — 
reaching  no  conclusion  because  there  is  no  conclusion  to  be  reached. 
Both  propositions  were  at  the  time  affirmed  and  denied  with  all  the 
earnestness,  indeed  with  all  the  temper,  which  distinguished  the 
mediaeval  theologians  upon  points  of  doctrine  once  regarded  as 
essential  to  salvation,  but  the  very  meaning  of  which  is  scarcely 
comprehended  by  modern  ecclesiastics.  With  hi*  usual  acumen  and 
with  his  never-failing  common  sense,  Mr.  Lincoln  declined  to  take 
part  in  the  discussion.  In  his  last  public  speech  he  treated  this 
question  with  admirable  perspicuity,  and  with  his  wonted  felicity  of 
homely  illustration :  "  I  have  been  shown  what  is  supposed  to  be  an 
able  letter,"  said  he,  "  in  which  the  writer  expresses  regret  that  my 
mind  has  not  seemed  to  be  definitely  fixed  upon  the  question  whether 
the  seceded  States,  so  called,  are  in  the  Union  or  out  of  it.  ...  It 
would  perhaps  add  astonishment  to  his  regret  to  learn  that  as  it 
appears  to  me,  that  question  has  not  been  and  is  not  a  practically 
material  one,  and  that  any  discussion  of  it  could  have  no  effect  other 
than  the  mischievous  one  of  dividing  friends.  As  yet,  whatever  it 
may  become,  the  question  is  bad  as  the  basis  of  a  controversy  —  a 
merely  pernicious  abstraction.  We  all  agree  that  the  seceded  States, 
so  called,  are  out  of  their  proper  practical  relation  with  the  Union, 
and  that  the  sole  object  of  the  Government  is  to  get  them  back  into 
their  proper  practical  relation.  I  believe  it  is  easier  to  do  this  with- 
out deciding  or  even  considering  whether  those  States  have  ever  been 
out  of  the  Union.  The  States  finding  themselves  once  more  at 
home,  it  would  seem  immaterial  to  me  to  inquire  whether  they  had 
ever  been  abroad." 

The  essential  difference  between  the  upholders  and  the  opponents 
of  this  theory  was  not  shown  in  the  practical  treatment  proposed  for 
the  States  which  had  been  in  rebellion.  It  was  in  truth  a  difference 
only  in  degree..  The  stoutest  defenders  of  the  dogma  that  the  States 
had  not  been  out  of  the  Union  did  not  propose  to  permit  the  re-organ- 
ization of  their  local  governments  except  upon  conditions  prescribed 
by  the  National  authority,  and  did  not  assert  the  rightfulness  of  their 
claims  to  representation  in  the  Senate  and  House  until  the  prescribed 


54  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

conditions  were  complied  with.  Those  who  protested  against  the 
dogma  did  not  assert  the  right  to  keep  the  States  out  of  the  Union, 
but  only  claimed  an  unrestricted  power  to  exact  as  the  prerequisite 
to  re-admission  such  conditions  as  might  be  deemed  essential  to 
the  public  safety  —  especially  such  as  would  most  surely  prevent 
another  rebellion  against  National  authority.  The  two  schools  in 
short  marked  the  dividing  line  between  the  radical  and  the  conserv- 
ative. Perhaps  another  feature  might  still  more  clearly  indicate  the 
difference  between  the  two.  The  conservatives  thought  the  process 
of  reconstruction  could  be  accomplished  under  the  sole  authority  and 
direction  of  the  Executive  Department  of  the  Government,  while  the 
radicals  held  it  to  be  a  matter  for  the  exclusive  determination  of 
Congress,  affirming  that  the  President's  right  of  intervention  was 
limited  to  approval  or  veto  of  the  bills  which  Congress  should  send 
to  him,  and  to  the  execution  of  all  laws  which  should  be  constitu- 
tionally enacted. 

An  extra  session  of  Congress  seemed  specially  desirable  at  the 
time,  and  had  one  been  summoned  by  the  President,  many  of  the 
troubles  which  subsequently  resulted  might  have  been  averted.  The 
propriety  of  ordering  an  earlier  assemblage  of  the  Thirty-ninth  Con- 
gress than  that  already  provided  by  the  Constitution  had  been  dis- 
cussed to  a  very  considerable  extent  among  the  members  of  the 
Thirty-eighth,  as  its  final  adjournment  (March  3,  1865)  approached. 
The  rebellion  seemed  tottering  to  its  fall,  and  it  was  the  belief  of 
many  of  the  leading  men  both  of  the  Senate  and  the  House,  that 
it  might  be  a  special  advantage  if  Congress  should  be  in  session 
when  the  final  surrender  of  the  Confederate  forces  should  be  made. 
But  the  prevailing  opinion  was  in  favor  of  leaving  the  matter  to 
Mr.  Lincoln's  discretion.  It  was  felt  by  the  members  that  if  the 
situation  should  demand  the  presence  of  Congress,  Mr.  Lincoln  would 
promptly  issue  his  proclamation,  and  if  the  situation  should  not  de- 
mand it,  the  presence  of  Congress  might  prove  hurtful,  and  would 
certainly  not  be  helpful.  The  calamity  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  death  had 
never  entered  into  the  public  mind,1  and  therefore  no  provision  was 
made  with  any  view  of  its  remotest  possibility. 

Mr.  Johnson,  however,  is  scarcely  to  be  blamed  for  not  calling  an 
extra  session  of  Congress.  Aside  from  his  confidence  in  his  own 
power  to  deal  with  the  problems  before  him,  he  shared,  no  doubt,  in 
the  general  dislike  which  Presidents  in  recent  years  have  shown  for 
extra  sessions.  Indeed,  to  the  Executive  Department  of  the  Govern- 


UNPOPULARITY  OF  EXTRA  SESSIONS.  55 

merit,  Congress,  even  in  its  regular  sessions,  is  a  guest  whose  coming 
is  not  welcomed  with  half  the  heartiness  with  which  its  departure  is 
speeded.  But  an  extra  session,  especially  at  the  beginning  of  an 
Administration,  is  looked  upon  with  almost  superstitious  aversion, 
and  is  always  to  be  avoided  if  possible.  It  was  remembered  that  all 
the  woes  of  the  elder  Adams'  Administration,  all  the  intrigues  which 
the  choleric  President  fancied  that  Hamilton  was  carrying  on  against 
him  in  connection  with  our  French  difficulties,  had  their  origin  in  the 
extra  session  of  May,  1797.  It  was  remembered  also  that  the  unpopu- 
larity which  attached  to  the  Presidency  of  Mr.  Madison  was  connected 
with  the  two  extra  sessions  which  his  timid  Administration  was  per- 
haps too  ready  to  assemble.  So  deeply  was  hostility  to  extra  sessions 
implanted  in  the  minds  of  political  leaders  by  the  misfortunes  of 
Adams  and  Madison  that  another  was  not  called  for  a  quarter  of  a 
century.  In  September,  1837,  Mr.  Van  Buren  inaugurated  the  ill- 
fortune  of  his  Administration  by  assembling  Congress  three  months 
in  advance  of  its  regular  session.  John  Tyler  in  turn  never  recov- 
ered from  the  dissensions  and  disasters  of  the  extra  session  of  May, 
1841,  —  though  it  was  precipitated  upon  him  by  a  call  issued  by 
President  Harrison.  All  these  extra  sessions  except  the  one  in  Mr. 
Van  Buren's  Administration  had  been  held  in  May,  and  even  in  his 
case  the  proclamation  summoning  Congress  was  issued  in  May.  No 
wonder,  therefore,  that  ill-luck  came  to  be  associated  with  that 
month.  When  the  necessity  of  assembling  Congress  was  forced 
upon  Mr.  Lincoln  by  the  firing  on  Sumter,  Mr.  Seward  warned  him 
that  in  any  event  he  must  not  have  the  session  begin  in  May.  It 
must  be  confessed  therefore  that  the  precedents  were  sufficiently 
alarming  to  influence  Mr.  Johnson  against  an  extra  session.  Nor 
was  there  any  popular  demand  for  it  because  the  President's  policy 
had  not  as  yet  portended  trouble  or  strife  in  the  ranks  of  the  Re- 
publican party. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

PRESIDENT  JOHNSON  AND  THE  CABINET.  —  EFFECT  OF  VICE-PRESIDENT'S  ACCESSION.  — 
EXAMPLE  OF  TYLER  IN  1841  AND  FILLMORE  IN  1850. —A  VICE-PRESIDENT'S  DIFFI- 
CULT POSITION.  —  PERSONNEL  OF  CABINET  IN  1865. —ITS  NEARLY  EVEN  DIVISION 
ON  RECONSTRUCTION  ISSUES.  —  PRESUMED  POSITION  OF  EACH  MEMBER.  —  STANTON, 
HARLAN,  AND  DENNISON  RADICAL.  —  WELLES,  McCuLLOcn,  AND  SPEED  CONSERVA- 
TIVE. —MR.  SEWARD'S  RELATION  TO  THE  PRESIDENT.  —  His  POSITION  EXPLAINED.— 
MR.  SEWARD  REGAINS  HIS  HEALTH.  — DISPLAY  OF  HIS  PERSONAL  POWER.  — CHAR- 
ACTERISTICS OF  MR.  SEWARD.  —  SUPERIORITY  OF  HIS  MIND. — TENDENCY  OF  THE 
PRESIDENT'S  MIND.  —  SOCIAL  INFLUENCES  AT  WORK  UPON  HIM.  —  His  RADICAL 
CHANGE  OF  POSITION.  —  PRESIDENT'S  PROCLAMATION  MAY  29.  —  AMNESTY  AND 
PARDON  TO  REBELS.  —  THIRTEEN  EXCEPTED  CLASSES.  —  THE  "  TWENTY-THOUSAND- 
DOLLAR"  DISABILITY.  —  WARMLY  OPPOSED  BY  MR.  SEWARD.  —  CLEMENCY  PROM- 
ISED TO  EXCEPTED  CLASSES.  — PARDONS  APPLIED  FOR.  —  FOURTEEN  THOUSAND 

GRANTED  IN  NlNE  MONTHS. —  ANOTHER  PROCLAMATION  OF  SAME  DATE.  —  PRO- 
VISIONAL GOVERNORS  APPOINTED.  — FIRST  FOR  NORTH  CAROLINA.  —  EXISTING  GOV- 
ERNMENTS IN  VIRGINIA,  LOUISIANA,  ARKANSAS,  AND  TENNESSEE  RECOGNIZED.  — 
PRESIDENT'S  RECONSTRUCTION  POLICY. —  Now  FULLY  DISCLOSED.  —  OATH  OF  AL- 
LEGIANCE PRESCRIBED.  —  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNORS  TO  ASSEMBLE  CONVENTIONS. — 

THE  CONVENTIONS  TO  FORM  CONSTITUTIONS.  —  LEGISLATURES  THEN  TO  ASSEMBLE. 

—  WHOLE  MACHINERY  OF  GOVERNMENT  IN  MOTION.  —  REBELS  IN  POSSESSION  OF 
STATE  GOVERNMENTS.  —  COLORED  MEN   EXCLUDED  FROM  ALL  PARTICIPATION.  — 
SUFFRAGE  LEFT  TO  THE  STATES.  —  PRESIDENT'S  PERSONAL  POSITION  ON  SUFFRAGE. 

—  RECONSTRUCTION  SCHEME  COMPLETE  IN  JULY.  —  THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE  RE- 
PUBLICAN PARTY.  — His    BELIEF   THAT  THE  PARTY  WOULD   FOLLOW   HIM.  — His 
HOSTILITY  TO  RADICALS.  —  PRESIDENT  DEPENDS  ON  CONDUCT  OF  THE  SOUTH.— 
PUBLIC  INTEREST  TRANSFERRED  TO  THAT  SECTION. 

DECLINING  to  seek  the  advice  of  Congress  in  the  embarrass- 
ments of  his  position,  President  Johnson  necessarily  subjected 
himself  to  the  counsel  and  influence  of  his  Cabinet.  He  had  inher- 
ited from  Mr.  Lincoln  an  organization  of  the  Executive  Departments 
which,  with  the  possible  exception  of  Mr.  Seward,  was  personally 
agreeable  to  him  and  politically  trusted  by  him.  He  dreaded  the 
effect  of  changing  it,  and  declined  upon  his  accession  to  make  room 
for  some  eminent  men  who  by  long  personal  association  and  by  iden- 
tity of  views  on  public  questions  would  naturally  be  selected  as  his 
advisers.  He  had  not  forgotten  the  experience  and  the  fate  of  the  two 
chief  magistrates  who  like  himself  had  been  promoted  from  the  Vice- 

56 


VICE-PRESIDENTS  MADE  PRESIDENT.  57 

Presidency.  He  instinctively  wished  to  avoid  their  mistakes,  and  to 
leave  behind  him  an  administration  which  should  not  in  after  years 
be  remembered  only  for  its  faults,  its  blunders,  its  misfortunes. 

The  Federal  Government  had  existed  fifty-two  years  before  it  en- 
countered the  calamity  of  a  President's  death.  The  effect  which 
such  an  event  would  produce  upon  the  personnel  of  the  Government 
and  upon  the  partisan  aspects  of  the  Administration  was  not  therefore 
known  prior  to  1841.  The  Vice-President  in  previous  years  had  not 
'always  been  on  good  terms  with  the  President.  In  proportion  to  his 
rank  there  was  no  officer  of  the  Government  who  exercised  so  little 
influence.  His  most  honorable  function  —  that  of  presiding  over  the 
Senate  —  was  purely  ceremonial,  and  carried  with  it  no  attribute  of 
power  except  in  those  rare  cases  when  the  vote  of  the  Senate  was 
tied  —  a  contingency  more  apt  to  embarrass  than  to  promote  his 
political  interests.  He  was,  of  course,  neither  sought  nor  feared  by 
the  crowds  who  besieged  the  President.  He  was  therefore  not  un- 
naturally thrown  into  a  sort  of  antagonism  with  the  Administration 
— an  antagonism  sure  to  be  stimulated  by  the  coterie  who,  disap- 
pointed in  efforts  to  secure  favor  with  the  President,  were  disposed 
to  take  refuge  in  the  Cave  of  Adullam,  where  from  chagrin  and  sheer 
vexation  the  Vice-Presidents  had  too  frequently  been  found.  The 
class  of  disappointed  men  who  gathered  around  the  Vice-President 
held  a  political  relation  not  unlike  that  of  the  class  who  in  England 
have  on  several  occasions  formed  the  Prince  of  Wales'  party  —  com- 
posed of  malcontents  of  the  opposition,  who  were  on  the  worst 
possible  terms  with  the  Ministry. 

John  Tyler,  as  President  Johnson  well  knew  from  personal  obser- 
vation, began  his  Executive  career  with  an  apparent  intention  of  fol- 
lowing in  the  footsteps  of  the  lamented  Harrison,  to  which  course 
he  had  indeed  been  enjoined  by  the  dying  President  in  words  of  the 
most  solemn  import.  Tyler  gave  assurances  to  his  Cabinet  that  he 
desired  them  to  retain  their  places.  But  the  suggestion  —  which 
he  was  too  ready  to  adopt — was  soon  made,  that  he  would  earn  no 
personal  fame  by  submissively  continuing  in  the  pathway  marked 
out  by  another.  With  this  uneasiness  implanted  in  his  mind,  it  was 
impossible  that  he  should  retain  a  Cabinet  in  whose  original  selec- 
tion he  had  no  part,  and  whose  presence  was  the  symbol  of  a  political 
subordination  which  constantly  fretted  him.  A  cause  of  difference 
was  soon  found ;  difference  led  to  irritation,  irritation  to  open  quarrel, 
and  quarrel  ended  in  a  dissolution  of  the  Cabinet  five  months  after 


58  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Mr.  Tyler's  accession  to  the  Executive  chair.  The  dispute  was  then 
transferred  to  his  party,  and  grew  more  angry  day  by  day  until 
Tyler  was  driven  for  political  shelter  and  support  to  the  Democratic 
party,  which  had  opposed  his  election. 

Mr.  Fillmore  had  not  been  on  good  terms  with  General  Taylor's 
Administration,  and  when  he  succeeded  to  the  Presidency  he  made 
haste  to  part  with  the  illustrious  Cabinet  he  found  in  power.  He 
accepted  their  resignations  at  once,  and  selected  heads  of  depart- 
ments personally  agreeable  to  himself  and  in  political  harmony  with 
his  views.  He  did  not  desert  his  party,  but  he  passed  over  from 
the  anti-slavery  to  the  pro-slavery  wing,  defeated  the  policy  of  his 
predecessor,  secured  the  enactment  of  the  Fugitive-slave  Law,  and 
neutralized  all  efforts  to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  slavery  in  the 
Territories.  In  this  course  Mr.  Fillmore  had  the  support  of  the  two 
great  leaders  of  the  party,  Mr.  Clay  and  Mr.  Webster,  but  he  dis- 
regarded the  young  Whigs  who  under  the  lead  of  Mr.  Seward  were 
proclaiming  a  new  political  dispensation  in  harmony  with  the  ad- 
vancing public  opinion  of  the  world.  Mr.  Fillmore  did  not  leave 
his  party,  but  he  failed  to  retain  the  respect  and  confidence  of  the 
great  mass  of  Northern  Whigs ;  and  his  administration  came  to  an 
end  in  coldness  and  gloom  for  himsfclf,  and  with  the  defeat,  and 
practically  the  destruction,  of  the  party  which  had  chosen  him  to  his 
high  place  four  years  before.  His  faithlessness  to  General  Scott  gave 
to  the  Democratic  candidate  an  almost  unparalleled  victory.  Scott 
encountered  defeat.  Fillmore  barely  escaped  dishonor. 

With  the  ill-fortune  of  these  predecessors  fresh  in  his  memory, 
Mr.  Johnson  evidently  set  out  with  the  full  intention  not  merely  of 
retaining  the  Cabinet  of  his  predecessor,  not  merely  of  co-operating 
with  the  party  which  elected  him,  but  of  espousing  the  principles 
of  its  radical,  progressive,  energetic  section.  A  Southern  man,  he 
undoubtedly  aspired  to  lead  and  control  Northern  opinion  —  that 
opinion  which  had  displayed  the  moral  courage  necessary  to  the 
prolonged  anti-slavery  struggle  in  Congress,  and  had  exhibited  the 
physical  courage  to  accept  the  gauge  of  battle  and  prosecute  a  gigan- 
tic war  in  support  of  deep-rooted  convictions.  The  speeches  of  the 
President  had  defined  his  position,  and  the  Nation  awaited  the  series 
of  measures  with  which  he  would  inaugurate  his  policy.  Public  in- 
terest in  the  subject  would  indeed  have  caused  greater  impatience  if 
public  attention  had  not  in  every  Northern  State  been  intently  occu- 
pied in  welcoming  to  their  homes  the  troops,  who  in  thinned  ranks 


MEMBERS  OF  THE  CABINET  IN  1865.  59 

and  with  tattered  standards  were  about  to  close  their  military  career 
and  resume  the  duties  of  peaceful  citizens. 

The  personal  character  and  political  bias  of  the  members  of  the 
Cabinet,  and  especially  their  opinions  respecting  the  policy  which 
the  President  had  indicated,  became  therefore  a  matter  of  controlling 
importance.  The  Cabinet  had  undergone  many  changes  since  its 
original  organization  in  March,  1861.  The  substitution  of  Mr. 
Stanton  for  Mr.  Cameron  and  of  Mr.  Fessenden  for  Mr.  Chase  has 
already  been  noticed ;  but  on  the  day  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  second  in- 
auguration Mr.  Fessenden  returned  to  the  Senate,  resuming  the  seat 
which  he  had  left  the  July  previous,  and  which  had  in  the  interim 
been  filled  by  Nathan  A.  Farwell,  an  experienced  ship-builder  and 
ship-master  of  Maine,  who  possessed  an  extraordinarily  accurate 
knowledge  of  the  commercial  history  of  the  country.  Mr.  Farwell 
is  still  living,  vigorous  in  health  and  in  intellect. 

When  Mr.  Fessenden  left  the  Treasury,  he  was  succeeded  by 
Hugh  McCulloch,  whose  valuable  service  as  Comptroller  of  the  Cur- 
rency had  secured  for  him  the  promotion  with  which  Mr.  Lincoln 
now  honored  him.  Mr.  McCulloch  was  a  native  of  Maine,  who  had 
gone  to  the  West  in  his  early  manhood,  and  had  earned  a  strong 
position  as  a  business  man  in  his  Indiana  home.  He  was  a  descend- 
ant of  that  small  but  prolific  colony  of  Scotch  and  Scotch-Irish  who 
had  settled  in  northern  New  England,  and  whose  blood  has  en- 
riched all  who  have  had  the  good  fortune  to  inherit  it.  Mr.  McCul- 
loch was  a  devoted  Whig,  and  was  so  loyal  to  the  Union  that  during 
the  war  he  could  do  nothing  else  than  give  his  influence  to  the 
Republican  party.  But  he  was  hostile  to  the  creed  of  the  Aboli- 
tionist, was  conservative  in  all  his  modes  of  thought,  and  wished  the 
Union  restored  quite  regardless  of  the  fate  of  the  negro.  He  believed 
that  unwise  discussion  of  the  slavery  question  had  brought  our  trou- 
bles upon  us,  and  that  it  would  be  inexcusable  to  continue  an  agita- 
tion which  portended  trouble  in  another  form.  The  policy  which  he 
desired  to  see  adopted  was  that  which  should  restore  the  Rebel  States 
to  their  old  relations  with  the  Union  upon  the  freest  possible  condi- 
tions and  within  the  shortest  possible  time. 

Mr.  Stanton,  though  originally  a  pro-slavery  Democrat,  had  by 
the  progress  of  the  war  been  converted  to  the  creed  of  the  most 
radical  wing  of  the  Republican  party.  The  aggressive  movement, 
the  denunciatory  declarations  made  by  Mr.  Johnson  against  the 
"  rebels  "  and  "  traitors  "  of  the  South,  immediately  after  his  acces- 


60  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

sion  to  the  Presidency,  were  heartily  re-echoed  by  Mr.  Stanton,  who 
looked  forward  with  entire  satisfaction  to  the  vigorous  policy  so 
vigorously  proclaimed.  Mr.  Stanton's  tendency  in  this  direction  had 
been  strengthened  by  the  intolerance  and  hatred  of  his  old  Demo- 
cratic friends,  —  of  whom  Judge  Black  was  a  type,  —  who  lost  no 
opportunity  to  denounce  him  as  a  renegade  to  his  party,  as  one 
who  had  been  induced  by  place  to  forswear  his  old  creed  of  State- 
rights.  Such  hostility  should,  however,  be  accounted  a  crown  of 
honor  to  Mr.  Stanton.  He  certainly  came  to  the  public  service 
with  patriotic  and  not  with  sordid  motives,  surrendering  a  most  bril- 
liant position  at  the  bar,  and  with  it  the  emolument  of  which  in  the 
absence  of  accumulated  wealth  his  family  was  in  daily  need. 

Mr.  Stanton's  observation  and  wide  experience  through  the  years 
of  the  war  had  taught  him  to  distrust  the  Southern  leaders.  Now 
that  they  had  been  subdued  by  force,  yielding  at  the  point  of  the 
bayonet  when  they  could  no  longer  resist,  he  did  not  believe  that 
they  should  be  regarded  as  returning  prodigals  to  be  embraced  and 
wept  over,  for  whom  fatted  calves  should  be  killed,  and  who  should 
be  welcomed  at  once  to  the  best  in  their  father's  house.  He  thought 
rather  that  works  meet  for  repentance  should  be  shown  by  these 
offenders  against  the  law  both  of  God  and  man,  that  they  should 
be  held  to  account  in  some  form  for  the  peril  with  which  they  had 
menaced  the  Nation,  and  for  the  agony  they  had  inflicted  upon  her 
loyal  sons.  Mr.  Stanton  was  therefore,  by  every  impulse  of  his  heart 
and  by  every  conviction  of  his  mind,  favorable  to  the  policy  which 
the  President  had  indicated,  if  not  indeed  assured,  to  the  people. 

Gideon  Welles  of  Connecticut,  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  was  a 
member  of  the  original  Cabinet  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  He  belonged  by 
habit  of  thought  and  former  affiliation  to  the  Democratic  party :  he 
had  united  with  the  Republicans  solely  upon  the  slavery  issue.  With 
the  destruction  of  slavery  his  sympathies  with  the  party  were  les- 
sened. The  industrial  policy  which  the  Republicans  had  adopted 
during  the  war  was  distasteful  to  Mr.  Welles  in  time  of  peace.  He 
had  been  a  bureau-officer  in  the  Navy  Department  during  Mr.  Folk's 
administration,  and  believed  in  the  wisdom  of  the  tariff  of  1846,  to 
which  he  gave  the  support  of  his  pen.  He  possessed  a  strong  intel- 
lect, but  manifested  little  warmth  of  feeling  or  personal  attachment 
for  any  one.  He  was  a  man  of  high  character,  but  full  of  prejudices 
and  a  good  hater.  He  wrote  well,  but  was  disposed  to  dip  his  pen  in 
gall.  He  was  careful  as  to  matters  of  fact,  fortified  his  memory  by  an 


PERSONAL  SKETCH  OF  CABINET.  61 


accurate  diary,  and  had  an  innate  love  of  controversy.  With  slavery 
abolished,  the  tendency  of  his  mind  was  towards  a  lenient  policy  in 
Southern  matters  and  for  the  promptest  mode  of  reconstruction. 

James  Harlan  of  Iowa  was  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  Caleb  B. 
Smith,  who  was  a  member  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  original  Cabinet,  had 
resigned  in  order  to  accept  a  Federal  judgeship  in  Indiana,  and  his 
able  assistant-secretary,  John  P.  Usher,  had  been  promoted  to  the 
head  of  the  department,  fulfilling  his  trust  to  Mr.  Lincoln's  satisfac- 
tion. He  in  turn  resigned,  and  was  succeeded  by  Mr.  Harlan  who 
was  nominated  by  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  unanimously  confirmed  by  the 
Senate  on  the  9th  of  March  —  the  confirmation  to  take  effect  on 
the  15th  of  May.  It  was  an  exceptional  form  of  appointment ;  but 
when  the  date  was  reached,  President  Johnson  insisted  that  the 
new  Secretary  should  assume  the  duties  of  the  office.  Mr.  Harlan 
was  a  well-educated  man  with  strong  natural  parts.  He  had  shown 
admirable  capacity  for  public  affairs  in  various  positions  hi  Iowa, 
and  had  served  that  State  efficiently  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  which  he  entered  March  4,  1855,  at  thirty-five  years  of  age. 
He  was  a  pronounced  and  unflinching  Republican,  ready  from  per- 
sonal attachment  to  Mr.  Lincoln  to  follow  him  in  any  public  policy, 
and  while  somewhat  distrustful  of  Johnson  was  undoubtedly  gratified 
and  re-assured  by  the  tone  of  his  speeches.  Mr.  Harlan  was  not  hasty 
in  judgment  but  thoughtful  and  reflective,  and  aimed  always  to  be 
just  in  his  conclusions. 

William  Dennison  of  Ohio  was  Postmaster-General.  He  had 
succeeded  Montgomery  Blair  during  the  Presidential  campaign  of 
1864,  when  that  officer's  resignation  was  asked  by  the  President  as  a 
means  of  appeasing  the  unreasonable  and  unreasoning  body  of  men 
who  had  attempted  to  divide  the  Republican  party  at  the  height  of 
the  war  by  the  nomination  of  General  Fre*mont  as  a  candidate  for 
the  Presidency.  Mr.  Dennison  was  an  amiable  man  of  high  princi- 
ples and  just  intentions,  but  he  was  not  endowed  with  executive 
force  or  the  qualities  of  a  leader.  He  had  secured  the  warm  friend- 
ship of  Mr.  Lincoln  during  his  service  as  war  governor  of  Ohio. 
His  selection  as  president  of  the  convention  that  nominated  Mr. 
Lincoln  a  second  time  was  due  to  the  zeal  and  the  warmth  with 
which  he  had  supported  the  National  Administration.  His  sympa- 
thies and  associations  were  all  with  the  strong  Republican  element 
of  the  country,  and  he  was  sure  to  be  firm  and  exacting  in  his 
views  of  a  reconstruction  policy. 


62  '  TWENTY  YEAKS  OF  CONGRESS. 

James  Speed  was  Attorney-General.  He  had  succeeded  Edward 
Bates  in  December,  1864,  and  was  selected  for  reasons  which  were 
partly  personal,  partly  public.  He  was  a  Kentuckian  and  a  Clay 
Whig,  two  points  in  his  history  which  strongly  attracted  the  favor 
of  Mr.  Lincoln.  But  more  than  all,  he  was  the  brother  of  Joshua 
Speed,  with  whom  in  young  manhood,  if  not  indeed  in  boyhood, 
Mr.  Lincoln  had  been  closely  associated  in  Illinois.  Of  most  kindly 
and  generous  nature,  Mr.  Lincoln  was  slow  to  acquire  intimacies, 
and  had  few  close  friendships.  But  those  who  knew  him  well  cannot 
fail  to  remember  the  kindling  eye,  the  warmth  of  expression,  the 
depth  of  personal  interest  and  attachment  with  which  he  always 
spoke  of  "  Josh  Speed,"  and  the  almost  boyish  fervor  with  which  he 
related  incidents  and  anecdotes  of  their  early  association.  James 
Speed,  to  whom  Mr.  Lincoln  had  been  thus  drawn,  was  a  highly 
respectable  lawyer,  and  was  altogether  a  fit  man  to  succeed  Mr. 
Bates  as  the  Border-State  member  of  the  Cabinet.  As  a  Southern 
man,  he  was  expected  to  favor  a  lenient  policy  towards  his  offending 
brethren,  and  was  supposed  to  look  coldly  upon  much  that  was  im- 
plied in  the  President's  declarations. 

Of  the  six  Cabinet  ministers  thus  enumerated,  it  will  be  seen 
that  three  —  Mr.  McCulloch,  Mr.  Welles,  and  Mr.  Speed — might  be 
regarded  as  favoring  a  conservative  plan  of  reconstruction,  and  three 
—  Mr.  Stanton,  Mr.  Harlan,  and  Mr.  Dennison  —  a  radical  plan. 
These  positions  were  thus  assigned  from  circumstantial  evidence 
rather  than  from  direct  declarations  of  the  gentlemen  themselves. 
At  a  time  so  critical,  responsible  officials  were  naturally  reserved  and 
cautious  in  the  expression  of  opinions.  But  it  was  instinctively  per- 
ceived by  close  observers  of  public  events,  that  in  correctly  estimat- 
ing the  influence  of  the  Cabinet  upon  the  policy  of  President  Johnson, 
great  consideration  must  be  given  to  the  attitude  which  Mr.  Seward 
might  assume.  If  his  strength  should  go  with  Mr.  Stanton  and  the 
radical  wing  of  the  Cabinet,  the  President  would  be  readily  and 
completely  confirmed  in  the  line  of  policy  frequently  forecast  in  his 
speeches.  If  on  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Seward  should  follow  the  gen- 
erally anticipated  course,  and  take  ground  against  the  harsh  and 
vengeful  spirit  indicated  by  the  President,  a  struggle  would  ensue, 
of  which  the  issue  would  be  doubtful. 

During  the  period  in  which  Mr.  Johnson  had  been  copiously  illus- 
trating the  guilt  of  treason,  and  avowing  his  intention  to  punish 
traitors  with  the  severest  penalty  known  to  the  law,  Mr.  Seward 


MR.  SEWARD  RECOVERS  FROM  HIS  WOUNDS.  63 

lay  wounded  and  helpless.  His  injuries,  received  at  the  hands  of 
the  assassin,  Payne,  at  almost  the  same  moment  in  which  Booth 
fired  his  fatal  shot  at  the  President,  were  at  first  considered  mortal. 
The  murderous  assault  came  only  a  short  time  after  a  severe  injury 
Mr.  Seward  had  received  in  consequence  of  being  violently  thrown 
from  his  carriage.  The  shock  to  his  nervous  system  from  the  attack 
of  the  assassin  was  so  great  that  his  physicians  did  not  for  some 
days  permit  him  to  learn  the  fate  of  the  President,  or  even  to  know 
that  his  own  son,  Mr.  Frederick  Seward,  who  had  been  his  faithful 
and  able  assistant  in  the  State  Department,  was  also  one  of  the  vic- 
tims of  the  plot  of  assassination,  and  was  lying,  as  it  was  feared,  and 
indeed  generally  believed,  at  the  point  of  death. 

To  the  joy  no  less  than  to  the  surprise  of  the  entire  country  Mr. 
Seward  rallied  and  regained  his  strength  very  rapidly.  He  was 
wounded  on  the  night  of  the  14th  of  April.  By  the  first  of  May 
he  had  so  far  recovered  as  to  be  informed  somewhat  minutely  of  the 
sorrowful  situation.  By  the  tenth  of  the  month  he  received  visits 
from  the  President  and  his  fellow-members  of  the  Cabinet,  and  con- 
ferred with  them  on  the  engrossing  questions  that  pressed  upon  the 
Administration.  On  the  20th  he  repaired  to  the  Department  of  State 
—  which  then  occupied  the  present  site  of  the  north  front  of  the 
Treasury  building  —  and  held  conference  with  foreign  ministers, 
especially  with  the  minister  of  France,  touching  the  complication  in 
Mexico.  From  that  time  onward,  though  still  weak,  and  bowed 
down  with  grief  by  the  death  of  Mr.  Lincoln  and  the  possibly 
impending  death  of  one  still  nearer  to  him,  Mr.  Seward  gave  close 
attention  to  public  affairs.  The  need  of  action  and  of  energy  so 
pressed  upon  him  that  he  found  no  time  to  utter  lamentation,  none 
to  indulge  even  in  the  most  sacred  personal  grief.  The  heroic  ele- 
ment of  the  man  was  displayed  at  its  best.  His  moral  strength,  his 
mental  fibre,  his  wiry  constitution  were  all  tested  to  their  utmost, 
and  no  doubt  to  the  serious  shortening  of  his  days. 

Mr.  Seward  feared  that  the  country  was  in  danger  of  suffering 
very  seriously  from  a  possible,  if  not  indeed  probable,  mistake  of 
the  Administration.  In  the  creed  of  his  own  statesmanship,  there 
was  no  article  that  comprehended  revenge  as  a  just  motive  for  action. 
No  man  had  suffered  more  of  personal  obloquy  from  the  South  than 
he,  no  one  living  had  received  deeper  personal  injury  from  the 
demoniac  spirit,  the  wicked  inspiration  of  the  rebellion.  But  he  did 
not  for  one  moment  permit  those  causes  which  would  have  power- 


64  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

fully  influenced  lower  natures  to  control  his  action,  or  even  to  extort 
a  single  word  of  passionate  resentment. 

It  had  been  Mr.  Seward's  fortune  at  different  epochs  in  the  coun- 
try's history  and  in  different  phases  of  his  own  career  to  incur  the 
harshest  censure  from  political  associates.  He  had  been  accused  at 
one  time  of  urging  the  anti-slavery  cause  so  far  as  to  endanger  the 
Union;  and,  when  the  Union  was  endangered,  he  was  accused  of 
being  willing  to  sacrifice  the  anti-slavery  cause  to  save  it.  "  The 
American  people,"  said  he  in  February,  1861,  uhave  in  our  day  two 
great  interests, — one  the  ascendency  of  freedom,  the  other  the 
integrity  of  the  Union.  The  slavery  interest  has  derived  its  whole 
political  power  from  bringing  the  latter  object  into  antagonism  with 
the  former.  Twelve  years  ago  Freedom  was  in  danger,  and  the 
Union  was  not.  .  .  .  To-day  practically  Freedom  is  not  in  danger, 
and  the  Union  is.  With  the  loss  of  the  Union,  all  would  be  lost." 
Mr.  Seward,  influenced  by  this  belief,  went  farther  in  the  direction  of 
conciliation  for  the  avoidance  of  war  than  his  associates  were  willing 
to  follow.  His  words  gave  offense  to  some  who  had  long  been  his 
most  earnest  supporters,  —  a  fact  thus  pointedly  recognized  by  him : 
"I  speak  now  singly  for  Union,  striving  if  possible  to  save  it  peace- 
ably ;  if  not  possible,  then  to  cast  the  responsibility  upon  the  party 
of  slavery.  For  this  singleness  of  speech,  I  am  suspected  of  infidelity 
to  freedom."  But  Mr.  Seward  held  his  course  firmly,  and  waited  for 
vindication  as  men  of  rectitude  and  true  greatness  can  afford  to  wait. 
"I  refer  myself  not  to  the  men  of  my  time,  but  to  the  judgment  of 
history." 

A  similar  dedication  of  himself  to  the  judgment  of  history  was 
in  Mr.  Seward's  opinion  again  demanded  of  him.  He  was  firmly 
persuaded  that  the  wisest  plan  of  reconstruction  was  the  one  which 
would  be  speediest ;  that  for  the  sake  of  impressing  the  world  with 
the  strength  and  the  marvelous  power  of  self-government,  with  its 
Law,  its  Order,  its  Peace,  we  should  at  the  earliest  possible  moment 
have  every  State  restored  to  its  normal  relations  with  the  Union. 
He  did  not  believe  that  guarantee  of  any  kind  beyond  an  oath  of 
renewed  loyalty  was  needful.  He  was  willing  to  place  implicit  faith 
in  the  coercive  power  of  self-interest  operating  upon  the  men  lately 
in  rebellion.  He  agreed  neither  with  the  President's  proclaimed 
policy  of  blood,  nor  with  that  held  by  the  vast  majority  of  his  own 
political  associates,  which,  avoiding  the  rigor  of  personal  punish- 
ment, sought  by  exclusion  from  political  honor  and  emolument  to 


66  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Not  only  was  this  obstacle  of  inherent  difference  of  political  view 
in  Mr.  Seward's  way,  but  he  also  encountered  an  intense  personal 
prejudice  which  even  while  he  was  disabled  by  wounds  had  been 
insinuated  into  the  President's  mind.  Nor  had  Mr.  Seward  any  force 
of  popularity  at  the  time  with  the  Republican  party  of  the  country. 
It  had  fallen  to  his  lot  during  the  four  eventful  years  of  the  war  to 
assume  unpleasant  responsibilities  and  to  perform  ungracious  acts. 
He  was  not  at  the  head  of  a  department  where  popular  applause 
awaited  his  ablest  work,  or  where  popular  attention  was  attracted 
by  the  most  brilliant  triumphs  of  his  diplomatic  correspondence. 

The  successful  placing  of  a  vast  loan  among  the  people  redounded 
everywhere  to  the  praise  of  Mr.  Chase.  The  gaining  of  a  victory 
in  the  field  reflected  credit  upon  Mr.  Stanton.  But  a  series  of  diplo- 
matic papers  far  outreaching  in  scope  and  grasp  those  of  any  states- 
man or  publicist  with  whom  he  was  in  correspondence,  recalling  in 
skill  the  best  efforts  of  Talleyrand,  and  in  spirit  the  loftiest  ideals 
of  Jefferson,  did  not  advance  the  popularity  of  Mr.  Seward  because 
the  field  of  his  achievements  and  triumphs  was  not  one  in  which  the 
masses  of  the  people  took  an  active  interest.  The  most  difficult  and 
in  many  cases  the  most  successful  of  diplomatic  work  is  necessarily 
confidential  for  long  periods.  In  legislative  halls,  discussion  on  ques- 
tions of  interest  enlists  public  attention  and  holds  the  popular  mind 
in  suspense  before  the  fate  of  the  measure  is  decided.  But  the 
dispatches  and  arguments  of  a  minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  which 
may  lead  to  results  of  great  consequence  to  his  country,  are  not 
gazetted  till  long  after  they  have  borne  their  fruit ;  and  the  public, 
rejoicing  in  the  conclusion,  seldom  turns  to  examine  the  toilsome 
process  by  which  it  was  attained.  It  was  from  the  comparative 
isolation  of  the  Department  of  State,  four  years  removed  from 
active  contact  with  the  people,  that  Mr.  Seward  now  assumed  the 
task  of  controlling  the  new  President  and  directing  his  policy  on 
the  weightiest  question  of  his  Administration. 

Those  who  thoroughly  knew  Mr.  Seward  through  all  the  stages 
of  his  political  career  were  aware  that,  great  as  he  was  in  public 
speech,  in  the  Senate,  at  the  Bar,  before  popular  assemblies,  cogent 
and  powerful  as  he  had  so  often  proved  with  his  pen,  his  one  peculiar 
gift,  greater  perhaps  than  any  other  with  which  he  was  endowed,  was 
his  faculty,  in  personal  intercourse  with  one  man  or  with  a  small 
number  of  men,  of  enforcing  his  own  views  and  taking  captive  his 
liearers.  With  the  President  alone,  or  with  a  body  no  larger  than  a 


PERSONAL  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  MR.  SEWARD.  67 

Cabinet,  where  the  conferences  and  discussions  are  informal  and 
conversational,  Mr.  Seward  shone  with  remarkable  brilliancy  and  with 
power  unsurpassed.  He  possessed  a  characteristic  rare  among  men 
who  have  been  long  accustomed  to  lead,  —  he  was  a  good  listener. 
He  gave  deferential  attention  to  remarks  addressed  to  him,  paid  the 
graceful  and  insinuating  compliment  of  seeming  much  impressed, 
and  offered  the  delicate  flattery,  when  he  came  to  reply,  of  repeating 
the  argument  of  his  opponent  in  phrase  far  more  affluent  and  eloquent 
than  that  in  which  it  was  originally  stated. 

In  his  final  summing  up  of  the  case,  when  those  with  whom  he 
was  conferring  were,  in  Dr.  Johnson's  phrase,  "talked  out,"  Mr. 
Seward  carried  all  before  him.  His  logic  was  clear  and  true,  his 
illustration  both  copious  and  felicitous,  his  rapid  citation  of  histori- 
cal precedents  surprising  even  to  those  who  thought  they  had  them- 
selves exhausted  the  subject.  His  temper  was  too  amiable  and 
serene  for  stinging  wit  or  biting  sarcasm,  but  he  had  a  playful  humor 
which  kept  the  minds  of  his  hearers  in  that  receptive  and  compliant 
state  which  disposed  them  the  more  readily  to  give  full  and  generous 
consideration  to  all  the  strong  parts  of  his  argument.  It  might  well 
indeed  be  said  of  Mr.  Seward  as  Mr.  Webster  said  of  Samuel  Dexter, 
"The  earnestness  of  his  convictions  wrought  conviction  in  others. 
One  was  convinced  and  believed  and  assented  because  it  was  gratify- 
ing and  delightful  to  think  and  feel  and  believe  in  unison  with  an 
intellect  of  such  evident  superiority." 

Equipped  with  these  rare  endowments,  it  is  not  strange  that  Mr. 
Seward  made  a  deep  impression  upon  the  mind  of  the  President.  In 
conflicts  of  opinion  the  superior  mind,  the  subtle  address,  the  fixed 
purpose,  the  gentle  yet  strong  will,  must  in  the  end  prevail.  Mr. 
Seward  gave  to  the  President  the  most  luminous  exposition  of  his 
own  views,  warm,  generous,  patriotic  in  tone.  He  set  before  him  the 
glory  of  an  Administration  which  should  completely  re-establish  the 
union  of  the  States,  and  re-unite  the  hearts  of  the  people,  now  es- 
tranged by  civil  conflict.  He  impressed  him  with  the  danger  of  delay 
to  the  Republic  and  with  the  discredit  which  would  attach  to  himself 
if  he  should  leave  to  another  President  the  grateful  task  of  reconcil- 
iation. He  pictured  to  him  the  National  Constellation  no  longer 
obscured  but  with  every  star  in  its  orbit,  all  revolving  in  harmony, 
and  once  more  shining  with  a  brilliancy  undimmed  by  the  smallest 
cloud  in  the  political  heavens. 

By  his  arguments  and  by  his  eloquence  Mr.  Seward  completely 


68  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

captivated  the  President.  He  effectually  persuaded  him  that  a 
policy  of  anger  and  hate  and  vengeance  could  lead  only  to  evil  re- 
sults ;  that  the  one  supreme  demand  of  the  country  was  confidence 
and  repose ;  that  the  ends  of  justice  could  be  reached  by  methods 
and  measures  altogether  consistent  with  mercy.  The  President  was 
gradually  influenced  by  Mr.  Seward's  arguments,  though  their  whole 
tenor  was  against  his  strongest  predilections  and  against  his  pro- 
nounced and  public  committals  to  a  policy  directly  the  reverse  of 
that  to  which  he  was  now,  almost  imperceptibly  to  himself,  yielding 
assent.  The  man  who  had  in  April  avowed  himself  in  favor  of 
"the  halter  for  intelligent,  influential  traitors,"  who  passionately 
declared  during  the  interval  between  the  fall  of  Richmond  and  the 
death  of  Mr.  Lincoln  that  "traitors  should  be  arrested,  tried,  con- 
victed, and  hanged,"  was  now  about  to  proclaim  a  policy  of  recon- 
struction without  attempting  the  indictment  of  even  one  traitor,  or 
issuing  a  warrant  for  the  arrest  of  a  single  participant  in  the  Rebel- 
lion aside  from  those  suspected  of  personal  crime  in  connection  with 
the  noted  conspiracy  of  assassination. 

In  this  serious  struggle  with  the  President,  Mr.  Seward's  influ- 
ence was  supplemented  and  enhanced  by  the  timely  and  artful  in- 
terposition of  clever  men  from  the  South.  A  large  class  in  that 
section  quickly  perceived  the  amelioration  of  the  President's  feelings, 
and  they  used  every  judicious  effort  to  forward  and  develop  it.  They 
were  ready  to  forget  all  the  hard  words  of  Johnson,  and  to  forgive 
all  his  harsh  acts,  for  the  great  end  to  be  gained  to  their  States 
and  their  people  by  turning  him  aside  from  his  proclaimed  policy  of 
punishing  a  great  number  of  rebels  with  the  utmost  severity  of  the 
law.  Johnson's  wrath  was  evidently  appeased  by  the  complaisance 
shown  by  leading  men  of  the  South.  He  was  not  especially  open  to 
flattery,  but  it  was  noticed  that  words  of  commendation  from  his 
native  section  seemed  peculiarly  pleasing  to  him. 

The  tendency  of  his  mind  under  such  influences  was  perhaps  not 
unnatural.  It  is  a  common  instinct  of  mankind  to  -covet  in  an 
especial  degree  the  good  will  of  the  community  among  whom  the 
years  of  childhood  and  boyhood  are  spent.  Applause  from  old  friends 
and  neighbors  is  the  most  grateful  that  ever  reaches  human  ears. 
When  Washington's  renown  filled  two  continents,  he  was  still  sensi- 
tive respecting  his  popularity  among  the  freeholders  of  Virginia. 
When  Bonaparte  had  kingdoms  and  empires  at  his  feet,  he  was  jealous 
of  his  fame  with  the  untamed  spirits  of  Corsica,  where  among  the 


REASONS  INFLUENCING  THE  PRESIDENT.  69 

veterans  of  Paoli  he  had  received  the  fiery  inspiration  of  war.  The 
boundless  admiration  and  gratitude  of  America  never  compensated 
Lafa}^ette  for  the  failure  of  his  career  in  France.  This  instinct  had 
its  full  sway  over  Johnson.  It  was  not  in  the  order  of  nature  that 
he  should  esteem  his  popularity  among  Northern  men,  to  whom  he 
was  a  stranger,  as  highly  as  he  would  esteem  it  among  the  men  of 
the  South,  with  whom  he  had  been  associated  during  the  whole  of  his 
career.  In  that  section  he  was  born.  There  he  had  acquired  the 
fame  which  brought  him  national  honors,  and  after  his  public  service 
should  end  he  looked  forward  to  a  peaceful  close  of  life  in  the  beauti- 
ful land  which  had  always  been  his  home. 

Still  another  influence  wrought  powerfully  on  the  President's 
mind.  He  had  inherited  poverty  in  a  community  where  during  the 
slave  system  riches  were  especially  envied  and  honored.  He  had 
been  reared  in  the  lower  walks  of  life  among  a  people  peculiarly 
given  to  arbitrary  social  distinctions  and  to  aristocratic  pretensions 
as  positive  and  tenacious  as  they  were  often  ill-founded  and  unsub- 
stantial. From  the  ranks  of  the  rich  and  the  'aristocratic  in  the 
South,  Johnson  had  always  been  excluded.  Even  when  he  was  gov- 
ernor of  his  State  or  a  senator  of  the  United  States,  he  found  him- 
self socially  inferior  to  many  whom  he  excelled  in  intellect  and  char- 
acter. His  sentiments  were  regarded  as  hostile  to  slavery,  and  to  be 
hostile  to  slavery  was  to  fall  inevitably  under  the  ban  in  any  part 
of  the  South  for  the  fifty  years  preceding  the  war.  His  political 
strength  was  with  the  non-slave-holding  white  population  of  Ten- 
nessee which  was  vastly  larger  than  the  slave-holding  population, 
the  proportion  indeed  being  twenty-seven  to  one.  With  these  a 
"good  fellow"  ranked  all  the  higher  for  not  possessing  the  graces 
or,  as  they  would  term  them,  the  "  airs  "  of  society. 

As  Mr.  Johnson  grew  in  public  favor  and  increased  in  reputation, 
as  his  talents  were  admitted  and  his  power  in  debate  appreciated,  he 
became  eager  to  compel  recognition  from  those  who  had  successfully 
proscribed  him.  A  man*  who  is  born  to  social  equality  with  the  best 
of  his  community,  and  accustomed  in  his  earlier  years  to  its  enjoy- 
ment, does  not  feel  the  sting  of  attempted  exclusion,  but  is  rather 
made  pleasantly  conscious  of  the  prestige  which  inspires  the  adverse 
effort  and  can  look  upon  its  bitterness  in  a  spirit  of  lofty  disdain. 
Wendell  Phillips,  descended  from  a  long  line  of  distinguished  ances- 
try, was  amused  rather  than  disconcerted  by  the  strenuous  but  futile 
attempts  to  ostracize  him  for  the  maintenance  of  opinions  which  he 


70  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

lived  to  see  his  native  city  adopt  and  enforce.  But  the  feeling  is  far 
different  in  a  man  who  has  experienced  only  a  galling  sense  of 
inferiority.  To  such  a  one,  advancing  either  in  fortune  or  in  fame, 
social  prominence  seems  a  necessity,  without  which  other  gifts  con- 
stitute only  the  aggravations  of  life. 

It  was  therefore  with  a  sense  of  exaltation  that  Johnson  beheld 
as  applicants  for  his  consideration  and  suppliants  for  his  mercy 
many  of  those  in  the  South  who  had  never  recognized  him  as  a  social 
equal.  A  mind  of  true  loftiness  would  not  have  been  swayed  by 
such  a  change  of  relative  positions,  but  it  was  inevitable  that  a  mind 
of  Johnson's  type,  which  if  not  ignoble  was  certainly  not  noble, 
should  yield  to  its  flattering  and  seductive  influence.  In  the  present 
attitude  of  the  leading  men  of  the  South  towards  him,  he  saw  the 
one  triumph  which  sweetened  his  life,  the  one  requisite  which  had 
been  needed  to  complete  his  happiness.  In  securing  the  good  opinion 
of  his  native  South,  he  would  attain  the  goal  of  his  highest  ambition, 
he  would  conquer  the  haughty  enemy  who  during  all  the  years  of 
his  public  career  had  been  able  to  fix  upon  him  the  badge  of  social 
inferiority. 


On  the  29th  of  May  (1865),  nineteen  days  after  Mr.  Seward's 
first  interview  with  President  Johnson,  and  nine  days  after  his  first 
visit  to  the  State  Department,  two  decisive  steps  were  taken  in  the 
work  of  reconstruction.  Both  steps  proceeded  on  the  theory  that 
every  act  needful  for  the  rehabilitation  of  the  seceded  States  could 
be  accomplished  by  the  Executive  Department  of  the  Government. 
This  was  known  to  be  the  favorite  doctrine  of  Mr.  Seward,  and  the 
President  readily  acquiesced  in  its  correctness.  There  is  nothing 
of  which  a  public  officer  can  be  so  easily  persuaded  a,s  of  the  en- 
larged jurisdiction  which  pertains  to  his  station.  If  the  officer  be 
of  bold  mind,  he  arrogates  power  for  purposes  of  ambition ;  and 
even  with  timid  men  power  is  often  assumed  as  a  measure  of  pro- 
tection and  defense.  Mr.  Johnson  was  a  man  of  unquestioned 
courage,  and  was  never  afraid  to  assume  personal  and  official 
responsibility  when  circumstances  justified  and  demanded  it.  Mr. 
Seward  had  therefore  no  difficulty  in  persuading  him  that  he  pos- 
sessed, as  President,  every  power  needful  to  accomplish  the  complete 
reconstruction  of  the  rebellious  States. 

The  first  of  these  important  acts  of  reconstruction,  upon  the 


CLASSES  EXCEPTED  FROM  AMNESTY.  71 

expediency  of  which  the  President  and  Mr.  Seward  had  agreed,  was 
the  issuing  of  a  Proclamation  of  Amnesty  and  Pardon  to  "  all  persons 
who  have  directly  or  indirectly  participated  in  the  existing  Rebel- 
lion "  upon  the  condition  that  such  persons  should  take  and  subscribe 
an  oath  —  to  be  registered  for  permanent  preservation  —  solemnly 
declaring  that  henceforth  they  would  "  faithfully  support,  protect, 
and  defend  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  union  of 
the  States  thereunder;"  and  that  they  would  also  "abide  by  and 
faithfully  support  all  laws  and  proclamations  which  have  been  made 
during  the  existing  Rebellion,  with  reference  to  the  emancipation  of 
slaves."  It  was  the  first  official  paper  which  Mr.  Seward  attested  as 
Secretary  of  State  under  President  Johnson.  He  undoubtedly  in- 
tended to  signalize  his  return  to  health  and  his  resumption  of  official 
duty  by  public  participation  in  an  act  which  he  regarded  as  one  of 
wisdom  and  mercy  —  an  act  which  was  wise  because  merciful. 

The  general  declaration  of  amnesty  was  somewhat  narrowed  in 
its  scope  by  the  enumeration,  at  the  end  of  the  proclamation,  of  cer- 
tain classes  which  were  excepted  from  its  benefit.  In  naming  these 
classes  a  keen  discrimination  had  been  made  as  to  the  character  and 
degree  of  guilt  on  the  part  of  those  who  had  participated  in  the 
Rebellion. 

—  First,  "  All  diplomatic  officers  and  foreign  agents  of  the  Confeder- 
ate Government"  were  excluded.     Their  offense  was  ranked  high 
because  of  their  efforts  to  embroil  us  with  other  nations. 

—  Second,  "  All  who  left  judicial  stations  under  the  United  States 
to   aid   the   Rebellion."     They  were  held  to  be  specially  culpable 
because  they  had  been  highly  honored  by  their  Government,  and  be- 
cause they  could  not,  like  many,  plead  in  excuse  the  excitement  and 
antagonisms  which  spring  from  an  active  participation  in  political 
affairs. 

—  Third,  "  All  military  and  naval  officers  of  the  Confederacy  above 
the  rank  of  colonel  in  the  army  or  lieutenant  in  the  navy  "     The 
men  who  actually  bore  arms  were,  of  course,  the  chief  offenders; 
but  holding  officers  only  of  high  grade  accountable,  was  intended  as 
an  act  of  marked  and  significant  leniency  to  the  multitude  of  the 
rank  and  file. 

—  Fourth,  "  All  who  left  seats  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
to  join  the  Rebellion."     These  should,  indeed,  have  been  first  named, 
for  they,  above  all  other  men,  fomented  the  Rebellion  in  its  early 
stages. 


72  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

—  Fifth,  "  All  who  resigned,  or  tendered  resignations,  in  the  Army 
or  Navy  of  the  United  States  to  evade  duty  in  resisting  the  Rebel- 
lion."    These  men  were  even  more  culpable  than  those  who  joined 
the  Rebellion.     They  were  not  openly  traitors,  but  were  popularly 
and  significantly  termed  "  sneaks." 

—  Sixth,  "  All  who  have  been  engaged  in  treating  otherwise  than  as 
lawful  prisoners  of  war,  persons  found  in  the  United-States  service 
as  officers,  soldiers,  or  seamen."     This  was  specially  directed  against 
those  who  had  maltreated  negro  troops  and  attempted,  by  personal 
cruelty,  to  frighten  them  from  the  National  service. 

—  Seventh,  "  All  persons  who  have  been,  or  are,  absentees  from  the 
United  States  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  the  Rebellion."     The  men 
who  had  misled  public  opinion  in  England,  and  who  hovered  along 
the  Canadian  border  during  the  war,  concocting  schemes  for  burning 
Northern  cities,  and  for  spreading  the  infection  of  yellow-fever  and 
the  plague  of  the  small-pox  in  the  loyal  States,  were  specially  aimed 
at  in  this  exclusion. 

—  Eighth,  "  All  officers  in  the  rebel  service  who  had  been  educated 
at  the  United-States  Military  or  Naval  Academy."     These  men  had 
received  the  bounty  of  the  Government,  shared  its  confidence,  and 
were  under  peculiar  obligation  to  defend  it. 

—  Ninth,  "All  men  who  held  the  pretended  offices  of  governors  of 
States  in  insurrection  against  the  United  States."     As  the  civil  war 
had  for  its  basis  the  dogma  of  State-rights,  the  chief  executive  officers 
of  States  represented  in  an  especial  manner  the  guilt  of  the  Rebellion. 

—  Tenth,  "  All  persons  who  left  their  homes  within  the  jurisdiction 
and  protection  of  the  United  States,  and  passed  beyond  the  Federal 
military  lines  into  the  pretended  Confederate  States  for  the  purpose 
of  aiding  the  Rebellion."     The  personal  guilt  of  these  men  lay  in  the 
fact  that,  according  to  their  own  theory  of  State-rights,  they  were 
traitors.     They  did  not  adhere  to  the  States  which  gave  them  birth, 
or  to  the  States  of  which  they  were  citizens. 

—  Eleventh,  "All  persons  who  have  been  engaged  in  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  commerce  of  the  United  States  upon  the  high  seas,  and 
all  persons  who  have  been  engaged  in  destroying  the  commerce  of  the 
United  States  upon  the  lakes  and  rivers  that  separate  the  British 
Provinces  from  the  United  States."     The  acts  of  these  men  were 
specially  reprobated  because  they  did  not  proceed  according  to  the 
laws  df  war.      In  the  popular  mind  they  were  held  amenable  to 
the  charge  of  piracy. 


CLASSES  EXCEPTED  FROM  AMNESTY.  73 

—  Twelfth,  "  All  persons  who,  at  the  time  when  they  seek  to  obtain 
amnesty  and  pardon,  are  in  military,  naval,  or  civil  confinement,  as 
prisoners  of  war,  or  persons  detained  for  offenses  of  any  kind  either 
before  or  after  conviction."     Many  prisoners  in  the  custody  of  the 
Government  were  charged  with  acts  of  peculiar  cruelty  or  perfidy, 
especially  with  the  committal  of  personal  outrages  which  did  not,  in 
any  degree,  affect  the  fortunes  of  the  war,  and  were  not  therefore 
entitled  to  the  excuse  of  having  been  the  necessities  of  a  bad  cause. 

—  Thirteenth,  "  All   participants   in   the    Rebellion,    the    estimated 
value  of  whose  taxable  property  is  over  twenty  thousand  dollars." 
The  intention  of  this  exception  was  to  draw  the  line  between  the 
men  who  could  exert  influence  in  their  respective  communities,  and 
those  who  were  necessarily  led  by  others.     Fixing  this  partition  be- 
tween voluntary  and  involuntary  guilt  on  the  property  line  was  a 
favorite  measure  with  President  Johnson.     It  met  with  much  oppo- 
sition from  the  loyal  as  well  as  the  disloyal. 

A  fourteenth  class  was  excepted,  not  from  the  benefits  of  the 
proclamation  of  amnesty,  but  from  the  necessity  of  taking  the  oath 
demanded  from  the  other  classes.  Full  pardon  was  granted,  with- 
out further  act  on  their  part,  to  all  who  had  taken  the  oath  pre- 
scribed in  President  Lincoln's  proclamation  of  December  8, 1863,  and 
who  had  thenceforward  kept  and  maintained  the  same  inviolate.  The 
status  of  every  man  in  the  Confederate  States  was  thus  determined 
and  proclaimed,  —  a  procedure  which  was  intended  to  be  the  corner- 
stone of  the  work  of  reconstruction. 

Standing  naked  and  unqualified  these  thirteen  exceptions  might 
seem  to  imply  a  harshness  of  treatment  inconsistent  with  the  spirit 
of  forgiveness  and  generosity  upon  which  Mr.  Seward  had  been  in- 
sisting, and  to  which  the  President  had  apparently  assented.  The 
classes  excepted  were  more  numerous  and  far  more  comprehensive 
than  those  excluded  from  amnesty  under  the  proclamation  issued  by  - 
Mr.  Lincoln  on  the  8th  of  December,  1863.  That  proclamation  not 
only  embodied  the  views  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  but  was  approved  by  Mr. 
Seward  in  whole  and  in  detail.  The  difference  between  the  two 
proclamations  was  not,  however,  radical,  and  was  readily  reconcilable 
with  Mr.  Seward's  purpose.  He  had  indeed  equalized  their  attri- 
butes of  mercy  by  inducing  President  Johnson  to  insert  a  proviso 
declaring  that  "  special  application  may  be  made  to  the  President  for 
pardon  by  any  person  belonging  to  the  excepted  classes,"  and  the 
assurance  was  added  that  "  such  clemency  will  be  liberally  extended 


74  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

as  may  be  consistent  with  the  facts  of  the  case  and  with  the  peace 
and  dignity  of  the  United  States."  This  proviso  was,  in  effect,  an 
invitation  to  the  excepted  classes  to  apply  for  pardon,  with  an  inti- 
mation that  the  case  of  any  individual  must  indeed  be  one  of  aggra- 
vated guilt  to  involve  serious  danger  of  the  withholding  of  Executive 
favor.  Mr.  Lincoln  had  held  out  110  hope  of  amnesty  to  the  excluded 
classes  in  his  proclamation,  though  doubtless  he  intended,  as  he  after- 
wards expressed  it  himself,  to  "  let  them  up  in  due  season." 

Mr.  Seward  had  favored  the  large  list  of  exceptions  for  another 
cause  which  he  thought  might  work  good  results.  The  ruling  classes 
of  the  old  slave  aristocracy  were  all  included  in  the  exceptions,  and 
it  was  Mr.  Seward's  belief  that  they  would  more  highly  appreciate 
the  benefit  of  amnesty  by  receiving  it  as  an  individual  gift  for  which 
they  were  compelled  to  ask.  Nor  did  the  acute  Secretary  of  State 
fail  to  see  that  the  personal  importance  and  prestige  of  the  excluded 
classes  were  by  the  very  fact  of  exclusion  advanced  in  the  South.  In 
an  unsuccessful  revolt  the  man  who  has  dealt  the  heaviest  blows  is 
the  one  upon  whose  head  a  price  is  set  by  the  conquering  power.  By 
excluding  these  Southern  leaders,  their  sense  of  self-importance  was 
enhanced,  their  influence  among  their  people  was  increased.  Subse- 
quently, by  granting  special  pardon  and  amnesty  to  individuals  of 
these  excluded  classes,  as  was  intended  from  the  first,  Mr.  Seward  felt 
that  he  would  be  bringing  each  one  to  whom  Executive  clemency  was 
extended  under  a  sense  of  personal  obligation  to  the  President,  and 
would  thereby  be  increasing  the  influence  of  the  Administration  in 
directing  the  process  and  progress  of  reconstruction  in  the  South. 

Every  exclusion  except  the  thirteenth  had  therefore  received  the 
ready  concurrence  and  approbation  of  Mr.  Seward.  He  resisted  the 
thirteenth  as  far  as  he  could,  but  finally  yielded  to  the  President, 
who  had  from  the  first  seemed  bent  on  punishing  the  men  of  prop- 
erty in  the  Confederate  States.  Mr.  Seward  could  not  approve  an 
arbitrary  declaration  that  a  man  who  had  inherited,  or  by  thrift  had 
acquired,  twenty  thousand  dollars  should  for  that  assigned  reason  be 
put  under  the  ban.  In  Mr.  Johnson's  mind,  however,  the  belief  was 
firmly  rooted  and  grounded  that  the  Rebellion  was  the  work  of  the 
slave-holders ;  and  as  the  slave-holders  were  in  large  proportion  the 
men  of  wealth  in  the  South,  he  was  sure  he  would  catch  in  his 
twenty-thousand-dollar  drag-net  some  great  offenders  not  included  in 
other  classes.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  is  not  true  that  the  men  of 
property  in  the  South  were  in  any  special  degree  responsible  for  the 


THE  "TWENTY  THOUSAND  DOLLAR"  EXCLUSION.  75 

origin  of  the  civil  war.  The  large  slave-holders  as  a  class,  uninflu- 
enced by  those  who  used  the  institution  of  slavery  as  a  political 
weapon,  would  not  have  taken  measures  to  break  up  the  Union 
because  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  election.  Mr.  Johnson,  therefore,  was 
merely  striking  at  the  class  whom  he  personally  hated  when  he 
arraigned  the  men  of  property  and  excluded  them  all  from  the 
benefit  of  amnesty. 

The  final  though  reluctant  assent  of  Mr.  Seward  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  the  property-owners  as  a  class,  rested  in  his  confidence  that 
special  pardons  would  cure  the  evil  and  repair  the  injustice  which 
the  singular  and  vindictive  action  of  Mr.  Johnson  might  entail. 
He  believed,  moreover,  that  after  all  the  destruction  resulting  from 
the  civil  war  and  all  the  loss  to  slave-holders  from  the  decree  of 
emancipation,  the  men  in  the  South  who  possessed  taxable  property 
to  the  net  amount  of  twenty  thousand  dollars  did  not  constitute  a 
large  number.  The  South,  at  the  beginning  of  the  war,  had  no 
manufactories ;  and  all  its  stores  of  merchandise  —  the  cotton,  the 
rice,  the  sugar,  the  tobacco,  the  hemp,  the  tar,  the  turpentine — had 
been  exhausted,  either  by  home  consumption  or  by  shipments  as 
return  cargoes  on  blockade  runners,  in  payment  of  debts  contracted 
for  material  of  war.  The  property  of  the  South,  therefore,  was  simply 
its  real  estate,  and  that,  in  the  overthrow  of  the  labor  system  by  the 
enfranchisement  of  the  slave,  could  not  be  sold  for  more  than  twenty 
per  cent  of  the  sum  it  would  have  brought  at  public  auction  at  any 
time  during  the  ten  years  preceding  the  war.  Mr.  Seward  must, 
therefore,  have  been  correct  in  his  estimate  that  there  were  very  few 
men  in  the  late  Confederacy  whose  property,  by  any  fair  valuation, 
could  be  assessed  for  taxation  at  twenty  thousand  dollars. 

The  judgment  of  Mr.  Seward  as  to  the  promptness  with  which 
Southern  men  would  seek  special  pardon  and  amnesty  was  abundantly 
vindicated.  The  promise  of  Executive  clemency,  which  he  induced 
President  Johnson  to  insert  in  his  proclamation,  exerted  a  speedy  and 
strong  influence  upon  the  excepted  classes.  Those  who  but  a  short 
time  before  had  been  vowing  unending  hostility  to  the  Union,  found 
themselves  confronted  with  the  prospect  of  a  State  Government  or- 
ganized, not  by  aliens  and  enemies  whom  they  could  thwart  and 
resist,  but  by  their  own  brethren  of  the  South  who  had  been  washed 
clean  of  the  sin  of  rebellion  by  the  simple  taking  of  an  oath  of  future 
loyalty  and  fidelity  to  the  Union.  The  excluded  classes  could  not 
endure  to  contemplate  this  result,  and  hence  they  were  drawn  to  ask 


76  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

for  amnesty  and  pardon.  Applications  came  in  great  numbers  from 
the  South.  In  the  archives  of  the  State  Department  there  are  some 
twenty-four  large  volumes  recording  the  pardons  granted  in  less 
than  nine  months  after  the  proclamation.  The  aggregate  number 
is  nearly  fourteen  thousand,  and  the  list  includes  prominent  men  of 
all  classes  in  the  South,  who,  recognizing  the  fact  that  the  Rebellion 
had  failed,  turned,  as  the  only  alternative,  to  the  Government  which 
had  conquered  and  was  now  ready  to  extend  a  magnanimous  forgive- 
ness. Many  of  these  sought  to  place  themselves  in  harmony  with 
the  restored  Union,  and  looked  forward  hopefully  to  the  events  of 
the  future.  Many  others,  as  it  must  be  regretfully  but  truthfully 
recorded,  appeared  to  have  no  proper  appreciation  of  the  leniency 
extended  to  them.  They  accepted  every  favor  with  an  ill  grace,  and 
showed  rancorous  hatred  to  the  National  Government  even  when 
they  knew  it  only  as  a  benefactor. 


Having  by  the  proclamation  extended  amnesty  on  the  simple  con- 
dition of  an  oath  of  loyalty  to  the  Union  and  the  Constitution,  and 
obedience  to  the  Decree  of  Emancipation,  the  President  had  estab- 
lished a  definite  and  easily  ascertainable  constituency  of  white  men 
in  the  South  to  whom  the  work  of  reconstructing  civil  government  in 
the  several  States  might  be  intrusted.  A  circular  from  Mr.  Seward 
accompanied  the  proclamation,  directing  that  the  oath  might  "be 
taken  and  subscribed  before  any  commissioned  officer,  civil,  military, 
or  naval,  in  the  service  of  the  United  States,  or  before  any  civil  or 
military  officer  of  a  loyal  State  or  Territory,  who,  by  the  laws  there- 
of, may  be  qualified  to  administer  oaths."  Every  one  who  took  the 
oath  was  entitled  to  a  certified  copy  of  it,  as  the  proof  of  his  resto- 
ration to  all  civil  rights,  and  a  duplicate,  properly  vouched,  was 
forwarded  to  the  State  Department,  to  be  "deposited  and  remain 
in  the  archives  of  the  Government."  Mr.  Seward  had  thus  adopted 
the  simplest,  most  convenient,  and  least  expensive  process  for  the 
administration  of  the  oath  of  loyalty.  Indeed  the  certifying  officer 
was  almost  brought  to  the  door  of  every  Southern  household.  The 
mercy  and  grace  of  the  Government  fell  upon  the  great  mass  of 
those  who  had  been  engaged  in  rebellion  as  gently  and  as  plen- 
teously  as  the  rain  from  heaven  upon  the  place  beneath  the  feet  of 
the  offenders. 


APPOINTMENT  OF  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNORS.  77 

With  these  details  complete,  a  second  step  of  great  moment  was 
taken  by  the  Government  on  the  same  day  (May  29).  A  proclama- 
tion was  issued  appointing  William  W.  Holden  provisional  governor 
of  the  State  of  North  Carolina,  and  intrusting  to  him,  with  the  co- 
operation of  the  constituency  provided  for  in  the  first  proclamation, 
the  important  work  of  reconstructing  civil  government  in  the  State. 
The  proclamation  made  it  the  duty  of  Governor  Holden  "at  the 
earliest  practicable  period,  to  prescribe  such  rules  and  regulations 
as  may  be  necessary  and  proper  for  assembling  a  convention  —  com- 
posed of  delegates  who  are  loyal  to  the  United  States  and  no  others 
—  for  the  purpose  of  altering  or  amending  the  Constitution  thereof, 
and  with  authority  to  exercise,  within  the  limit  of  said  State,  all  the 
powers  necessary  and  proper  to  enable  the  loyal  people  of  the  State 
of  North  Carolina  to  restore  said  State  to  its  constitutional  relations 
to  the  Federal  Government  and  to  present  such  a  Republican  form 
of  State  Government  as  will  entitle  the  State  to  the  guaranty  of  the 
United  States  therefor  and  its  people  against  invasion,  insurrections, 
and  domestic  violence." 

It  was  specially  provided  in  the  proclamation  that  in  "choosing 
delegates  to  any  State  Convention  no  person  shall  be  qualified  as  an 
elector  or  eligible  as  a  member  unless  he  shall  have  previously  taken 
the  prescribed  oath  of  allegiance,  and  unless  he  shall  also  possess  the 
qualifications  of  a  voter  as  defined  under  the  Constitution  and  Laws 
of  North  Carolina  as  they  existed  on  the  20th  of  May,  1861,  imme- 
diately prior  to  the  so-called  ordinance  of  secession."  Mr.  Lincoln 
had  in  mind,  as  was  shown  by  his  letter  to  Governor  Hahn  of  Louisi- 
ana, to  try  the  experiment  of  negro  suffrage,  beginning  with  those 
who  had  served  in  the  Union  Army,  and  who  could  read  and  write ; 
but  President  Johnson's  plan  confined  the  suffrage  to  white  men,  by 
prescribing  the  same  qualifications  as  were  required  in  North  Caro- 
lina before  the  war.  The  convention  that  might  be  chosen  by  the 
voters  whose  qualifications  were  thus  preliminarily  defined,  or  the 
Legislature  which  the  convention  might  order  to  meet,  were  empow- 
ered to  prescribe  the  permanent  qualifications  of  voters  and  the  eligi- 
bility of  persons  to  hold  office  under  the  Constitution  and  Laws  of 
the  State  —  "a  power,"  as  the  President  was  careful  to  declare, 
"which  the  people  of  the  several  States  composing  the  Federal  Union 
have  rightfully  exercised  from  the  origin  of  the  Government  to  the 
present  time." 

The  military  commander  of  the  Department  of  North  Carolina 


78  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

and  all  officers  and  persons  in  the  military  and  naval  service  of  the 
United  States  were  directed  to  aid  and  assist  in  carrying  the  proc- 
lamation into  effect,  and  they  were  specially  ordered  to  "abstain 
from  hindering,  impeding,  or  discouraging  the  loyal  people  in  any 
manner  whatever  from  the  organization  of  a  State  Government  as 
herein  authorized."  The  several  heads  of  the  Executive  Depart- 
ments were  directed  to  re-establish  the  entire  machinery  of  the 
National  Government  within  the  limits  of  North  Carolina.  The  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  was  directed  to  nominate  for  appointment,  col- 
lectors of  customs,  assessors  and  collectors  of  internal  revenue,  and 
such  other  officers,  of  the  Treasury  Department  as  were  authorized 
by  law.  The  Postmaster-General  was  directed  to  re-establish  the  post- 
offices  and  postmasters.  The  United-States  district  judge  was  directed 
to  hold  courts  in  North  Carolina,  and  the  Attorney-General  was  or- 
dered to  "  enforce  the  administration  of  justice  within  said  State  in  all 
matters  within  the  cognizance  and  jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  courts." 
In  short,  every  power  of  the  National  Government  in  North  Carolina 
was  re-asserted,  every  function  re-established,  every  duty  re-assumed. 
In  making  appointments  for  office,  it  was  ordered  in  the  proclama- 
tion that  "  preference  shall  be  given  to  qualified  loyal  persons  resid- 
ing within  the  districts  where  their  respective  duties  are  to  be  per- 
formed. But  if  suitable  residents  of  the  districts  shall  not  be  found, 
then  persons  residing  in  other  States  or  districts  shall  be  appointed." 
A  fortnight  later,  on  the  13th  of  June,  a  proclamation  was  issued 
for  the  reconstruction  of  the  civil  government  of  Mississippi,  and 
William  L.  Sharkey  was  appointed  provisional  governor.  Four  days 
later,  on  the  17th  of  June,  a  similar  proclamation  was  issued  for 
Georgia  with  James  Johnson  for  provisional  governor,  and  for  Texas 
with  Andrew  J.  Hamilton  for  provisional  governor.  On  the  21st  of 
the  same  month  Lewis  E.  Parsons  was  appointed  provisional  governor 
of  Alabama,  and  on  the  30th  Benjamin  F.  Perry  was  appointed  pro- 
visional governor  of  South  Carolina.  On  the  13th  of  July  the  list 
was  completed  by  the  appointment  of  William  Marvin  as-  provisional 
governor  of  Florida.  The  precise  text  of  the  North-Carolina  procla- 
mation, mutatis  mutandis,  was  repeated  in  each  one  of  those  relating 
to  these  six  States.  The  process  was  designed  to  be  exhaustive  by 
fully  restoring  every  connection  existing  under  the  Constitution  be- 
tween the  States  and  the  National  Government.  Viewed  merely  as 
a  theory  it  was  perfect.  The  danger  was  that  in  the  test  of  actual 
practice  it  might  end  like  so  many  similar  experiments  in  other 


RECONSTRUCTION  IN   FOUR  STATES.  79 

countries.     An  opponent  wittily  characterized  it  as  Government  by 
diagram,  accurately  drawn  on  an  Executive  blackboard. 

For  the  reconstruction  of  the  other  four  States  of  the  Confederacy 
different  provisions  were  made.  In  Virginia  Francis  H.  Pierpont  had 
been  made  governor  after  the  State  had  seceded  and  the  State  of 
West  Virginia  had  been  established.  He  was  the  head  of  the  Loyal 
Government  of  Virginia,  which  gave  its  assent  to  the  division  of  the 
State.  His  Government,  the  shell  of  which  had  been  preserved  after 
West  Virginia's  separate  existe'nce  had  been  recognized  by  the 
National  Government,  with  its  temporary  capital  at  Alexandria, 
was  accepted  by  President  Johnson's  Administration  as  the  legiti- 
mate Government  of  Virginia.  All  its  archives,  property,  and  effects, 
as  was  afterwards  said  by  Thaddeus  Stevens,  were  taken  to  Richmond 
in  an  ambulance.  As  early  as  the  9th  of  May  President  Johnson 
had  issued  a  proclamation  recognizing  Mr.  Pierpont  as  governor  of 
the  State,  and  assuring  him  that  he  would  be  "aided  by  the  Federal 
Government,  so  far  as  may  be  necessary,  in  the  lawful  measures  he 
may  take  for  the  extension  and  administration  of  the  State  Govern- 
ment throughout  the  geographical  limits  of  said  State."  The  same 
proclamation  declared  that  "  All  acts  and  proceedings  of  the  politi- 
cal, military,  and  civil  organizations  winch  have  been  in  a  state  of 
insurrection  and  rebellion  within  the  State  of  Virginia  against  the 
laws  and  authority  of  the  United  States  are  declared  null  and  void." 
The  proclamation  further  declared  that  any  person  assuming  to 
exercise  any  authority  in  Virginia  by  virtue  of  a  military  or  civil 
commission  issued  by  Jefferson  Davis,  President  of  the  so-called 
Confederate  States,  or  by  John  Letcher,  or  William  Smith,  Gov- 
ernors of  Virginia,  "shall  be  deemed  and  taken  as  in  rebellion  against 
the  United  States,  and  dealt  with  accordingly." 

A  course  not  dissimilar  to  that  adopted  in  Virginia  was  fol- 
lowed in  Louisiana,  Arkansas,  and  Tennessee.  In  all  of  them  the 
so-called  "  ten  per  cent "  governments  established  under  Mr.  Lincoln's 
authority  were  now  recognized.  Governor  Hahn  was  held  to  be  the 
true  executive  of  Louisiana, — a  concession  all  the  more  readily 
made,  because,  under  the  revised  constitution  of  the  State,  the 
people  would  be  called  upon  in  the  approaching  autumn  to  choose 
his  successor.  In  Arkansas  also,  the  Government,  with  Isaac 
Murphy  at  its  head,  was  now  recognized;  and  in  Tennessee  the 
authority  of  William  G.  Brownlow  as  governor  was  promptly 
accepted  as  constitutional  and  regular.  This  Government,  as  already 


80  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

narrated,  had  been  brought  into  existence  by  the  earnest  effort  of 
Mr.  Johnson  in  the  period  which  had  elapsed  between  his  election 
and  inauguration  as  Vice-President.  The  direct  committal  of  the 
President  to  the  legality  of  his  own  work  was  the  controlling  cause 
which  led  to  the  recognition  of  the  Governments  of  the  four  States 
under  consideration.  But  for  the  impossibility  of  disowning  or  in 
any  way  discrediting  the  existing  Government  of  Tennessee,  it  is 
probable  that  the  plan  by  which  provisional  governments  were 
established  in  seven  of  the  rebelli6us  States  would  have  been  uni- 
formly applied  to  the  entire  eleven  which  formed  the  Confederacy. 
The  same  executives  would  doubtless  have  been  selected  for  provis- 
ional service,  but  there  would  have  been  evident  advantage  in  treat- 
ing all  the  States  in  precisely  the  same  manner. 

The  scope  and  design  of  the  President's  reconstruction  policy 
were  thus  made  fully  apparent.  The  work  was  committed  to  the 
white  men  of  the  several  States,  who,  outside  of  the  excepted  classes, 
were  ready  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Government.  They 
.were  empowered  to  form  the  Convention  which  should  shape  the 
organic  law  of  the  State,  and  in  that  law  they  were  authorized  to 
establish  the  basis  of  suffrage,  —  a  right  which  the  President  held 
to  belong  to  the  State,  to  be,  indeed,  inalienable  from  the  State.  It 
was,  therefore,  evident  that  the  white  men  who  were  allowed  to 
regain  all  the  rights  of  citizenship  by  a  mere  oath  of  fidelity  would 
not,  in  framing  an  organic  law  for  the  State,  exclude  the  classes 
whom  the  President  had  excepted  from  pardon.  The  excluded 
classes  had  been  the  leaders,  the  commanders,  the  men  of  position, 
the  friends  and  the  patrons  of  those  who,  only  less  guilty  because 
less  influential  and  powerful,  were  now  intrusted  with  the  initial 
work  in  the  re-establishment  of  civil  Government  in  their  respective 
States. 

It  was  not  a  possible  supposition  that  these  men,  when  they 
assembled  in  convention,  would  exclude  the  entire  leading  class  of 
the  South,  or  even  one  member  of  it,  from  the  full  constitutional 
privileges  and  benefits  of  the  civil  Government  they  were  about  to 
re-organize.  The  suffrage  conferred  on  others  would,  in  like  manner, 
be  conferred  on  them :  the  offices  of  rank  and  emolument  in  the 
new  Government  would  likewise  be  open  to  them,  and  it  would  thus 
be  made  evident  that  the  President's  exclusion  of  these  classes  was 
merely  an  inhibition  from  doing  a  preliminary  work  which  others 
would  do  equally  well  for  them.  Unless,  therefore,  some  other  form 


POLITICAL  EXCLUSION  OF  THE  COLORED  RACE.  81 

of  denial  or  exclusion  should  be  announced,  —  and  none  other  appar- 
ently was  intended,  —  the  President's  policy  would  end  in  promptly 
handing  over  to  the  authors  and  designers  of  the  Rebellion  the  com- 
plete control  of  the  States  whose  civil  power  they  had  willfully 
perverted  and  turned  against  the  National  authority.  Mr.  Seward's 
magnanimity,  his  boundless  confidence  in  human  nature,  had  led 
him  to  believe  that  this  was  wise  policy.  He  believed  it  so  firmly 
that  he  had  persuaded  the  President  —  against  his  own  will  and 
purpose  —  to  adopt  it,  and  to  attempt  its  enforcement. 

It  soon  became  evident  that  President  Johnson  realized  how  com- 
pletely he  had  excluded  men  of  the  colored  race  from  any  share  of 
political  power  in  the  Southern  States  by  his  process  of  reconstruc- 
tion. It  is  true  that  he  stood  loyally  by  the  Thirteenth  Amendment 
to  the  Constitution,  which  had  been  submitted  by  Congress  before 
his  accession  to  the  Presidency  but  had  not  yet  been  ratified  by  the 
States.  He  used  his  influence,  which  was  commanding,  to  induce 
the  Southern  States  to  accept  it  in  good  faith.  But  he  saw,  as  others 
had  seen  before  him,  that  this  was  not  going  far  enough  to  satisfy 
the  reasonable  desire  of  many  in  the  North  whom  he  felt  it  necessary 
to  conciliate.  To  emancipate  the  negro  and  concede  to  him  no  pos- 
sible power  wherewith  to  protect  his  freedom  would,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  many  Northern  philanthropists,  prove  the  merest  mockery 
of  justice.  This  sentiment  wrought  on  Mr.  Johnson  so  powerfully 
that  against  his  own  wish  he  was  compelled  to  address  a  circular  to 
his  provisional  governors,  suggesting  that  the  elective  franchise  should 
be  extended  to  all  persons  of  color  "  who  can  read  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  and  write  their  names,  and  also  to  those  who 
own  real  estate  valued  at  not  less  than  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars, 
and  pay  taxes  thereon." 

In  writing  to  Governor  Sharkey  of  Mississippi  in  relation  to  this 
subject  the  President  argued  that  his  recommendations  touching 
colored  suffrage  could  be  adopted  "with  perfect  safety,"  and  that 
thereby  "the  Southern  States  would  be  placed,  with  reference  to 
free  persons  of  color,  upon  the  same  basis  with  the  free  States." 
That  Mr.  Johnson  made  this  recommendation  simply  from  policy 
and  not  from  any  proper  conception  of  its  inherent  justice  is  indicated 
by  the  closing  paragraph  in  his  letter  to  Governor  Sharkey.  Indeed, 
by  imprudent  language  the  President  made  an  unnecessary  exposure 
of  the  character  of  his  motives,  and  deprived  himself  of  much  of  the 
credit  which  might  otherwise  have  belonged  to  him.  "  I  hope  and 
VOL.  II.  6 


82  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

trust,"  he  wrote  to  his  Mississippi  governor,  "  that  your  convention 
will  do  this,  and  as  a  consequence  the  Radicals,  who  are  wild  upon 
negro  franchise,  will  be  completely  foiled  in  their  attempt  to  keep 
the  Southern  States  from  renewing  their  relations  to  the  Union  by 
not  accepting  their  senators  and  representatives.'* 

At  this  period  the  President  did  not  contemplate  a  break  with 
the  Republican  party,  much  less  a  coalition  with  its  opponents.  He 
had  the  vanity  to  believe,  or  was  at  least  under  the  delusion  of  be- 
lieving that  —  with  the  exception  of  those  whom  he  denominated 
Radicals  —  he  could  induce  the  party  to  follow  him.  Mr.  Seward 
had  undoubtedly  influenced  him  to  this  conclusion,  as  the  Secretary 
of  State  indulged  the  same  hopeful  anticipation  himself.  The 
President  seemed  to  have  no  comprehension  of  the  fact  that  with 
inconsiderable  exceptions  the  entire  party  was  composed  of  Radicals, 
men  who  in  aim  and  sympathy  were  hostile  to  the  purposes  indicated 
by  his  policy.  His  own  radicalism,  from  which  Mr.  Seward  had  suc- 
ceeded in  turning  him,  was  the  radicalism  of  revenge  upon  the  authors 
of  the  Rebellion.  The  radicalism  to  which  he  now  contemptuously 
indicated  his  opposition  was  that  which  looked  to  the  broadening  of 
human  rights,  to  philanthropy,  to  charity,  and  to  good  deeds.  Every 
intelligent  Republican  saw  that  the  attempt  which  the  President  was 
now  making  with  his  provisional  governors  to  secure  a  partial  fran- 
chise to  the  colored  man,  was  really  only  a  petition  to  the  States  to 
act  in  a  certain  manner  upon  a  subject  over  which,  by  his  own  proc- 
lamation, their  power  of  control  was  declared  to  be  absolute.  With 
the  prejudices  which  inspired  the  South, — prejudices  made  still  more 
intense  by  the  victory  of  the  Union,  —  it  was  altogether  certain  that 
the  Southern  Conventions  would  not  extend  the  elective  franchise 
or  civil  right  of  any  kind  to  the  colored  men  of  any  class.  The 
Southern  States  would  undoubtedly  agree  pro  forma  to  the  Thir- 
teenth Amendment  as  a  means  of  regaining  their  representation  in 
Congress.  Beyond  that,  so  long  as  the  National  Government  con- 
ceded their  right  of  control,  it  was  probable  that  every  step  which 
did  not  conflict  with  the  Constitution  and  Laws  of  the  United  States 
would  be  taken  by  the  Southern  States  to  deprive  the  negro  of  all 
power  or  opportunity  for  advancement.  Mr.  Seward,  by  the  gener- 
ous instinct  of  his  own  philanthropy,  believed  all  things  for  the 
Union,  which  had  been  regenerated  by  the  emancipation  of  the  slave, 
and  hoped  all  things  for  the  Southern  people,  who  had  been  chastened 
by  defeat.  His  philanthropy  taught  him  a  faith  in  others  as  strong 


RECONSTRUCTION  SCHEME  IN  OPERATION.  83 

as  his  own  consciousness  of  right ;  and,  by  assuming  the  full  respon- 
sibility of  the  President's  position,  he  brought  to  its  support  thou- 
sands of  advocates  who,  but  for  his  personal  influence  and  persuasive 
power,  would  have  opposed  and  spurned  it. 

The  whole  scheme  of  reconstruction,  as  originated  by  Mr.  Seward 
and  adopted  by  the  President,  was  in  operation  by  the  middle  of 
July,  three  months  after  the  assassination  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  Every 
step  taken  was  watched  with  the  deepest  solicitude  by  the  loyal 
people.  The  rapid  and  thorough  change  in  the  President's  position 
was  clearly  discerned  and  fully  appreciated.  His  course  of  pro- 
cedure was  dividing  the  Republican  party,  and  already  encouraging 
the  hopes  of  those  in  the  North  who  had  been  the  steady  opponents 
of  Mr.  Lincoln's  war  policy,  and  of  those  in  the  South  who  had 
sought  for  four  years  to  destroy  the  Great  Republic.  It  soon  be- 
came evident  that  the  Northern  Democrats  who  had  been  opposed 
to  the  war,  and  the  Southern  Democrats  who  had  been  defeated  in 
the  war,  would  unite  in  political  action,  and  that  the  course  of  the 
National  Administration  would  exercise  a  potential  influence  upon 
their  success  or  their  failure.  In  turn,  the  course  of  the  National 
Administration  would  certainly  be  influenced,  and  its  fate  in  large 
degree  determined,  by  the  conduct  of  the  Southern  men,  in  whom 
the  President  was  placing  unbounded  trust.  Public  interest  was 
therefore  transferred  for  the  time  from  the  acts  of  the  President 
at  the  National  Capital  to  the  acts  of  the  Reconstruction  conventions 
about  to  assemble  in  the  Southern  States. 


CHAPTER    V. 

GREAT  OPPORTUNITY  GIVEN  TO  THE  SOUTH.  —  THEIR  RESPONSE  TO  THE  PRESIDENT'S 
TREATMENT.  —  NORTHERN  DESIRE  FOR  RESTORATION  OF  THE  UNION.  —  SOUTH  DOES 
NOT  RESPOND  TO  IT. — SOUTHERN  RECONSTRUCTION  CONVENTIONS. — INCOMPLETE 
AND  ILL-DIGESTED  PROCEEDINGS.  —  REBELS  APPLY  FOR  SEATS  IN  CONGRESS.  — 
IRON-CLAD  OATH  IN  THEIR  WAY. —  THEY  DENOUNCE  IT  AS  UNCONSTITUTIONAL.— 
COURSE  OF  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  —  SOUTHERN  FEELING  TOWARDS  THE  UNION. 

—  THEIR  CONVENTIONS  EXHIBIT  HATRED.  —  HOSTILE  MANIFESTATIONS.  —  EXPRES- 
SIONS OF  PRESS  AND  STUMP  ORATORS.  —  LEADING  REBELS  NOMINATED  FOR  OFFICE. 

SOUTH  DESCRIBED  BY  MR.  FESSENDEN's  COMMITTEE. — SOUTH  MISLED  BY  NORTH- 
ERN DEMOCRACY  IN  1865.  —  FORMER  CALAMITY  FROM  SAME  CAUSE  IN  1861.  —  WHAT 
CONGRESS  WOULD  DEMAND  OF  THE  SOUTH. —  THREE  INDISPENSABLE  REQUIRE- 
MENTS. —  SOUTHERN  LEGISLATURES  DEFIANTLY  RESIST.  —  CHARACTER  OF  THOSE 
LEGISLATURES.  —  PRACTICAL  RE-ENACTMENT  OF  THE  SLAVE-CODE.  —  CRUELTY  OF 
ALABAMA  STATUTES.  —  FRAUDULENT  IN  THEIR  NATURE. — COURSE  OF  THE  CITY  OF 
MOBILE.  —  STATUTES  OF  FLORIDA  STILL  WORSE.  —  UNFAIR  TAXATION.  —  POLL-TAX 
OF  THREE  DOLLARS.  —  A  LIEN  UPON  THE  NEGRO'S  LABOR.  —  OPPRESSION  OF  THE 
NEGRO.  —  ENACTMENTS  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA.  —  CHARACTERIZED  BY  RANK  INJUSTICE. 

—  PENAL  ENACTMENTS  IN  MISSISSIPPI.  —  ATROCIOUS  PROVISIONS.  —  LAWS  OF  LOU- 
ISIANA WORST  OF  ALL.  —  CAPITATION  TAX  IN  THE  SOUTH.  —  ITS  UNJUST  EFFECT. 

—  SCHOOL  LAWS.  —  EDUCATION  PRACTICALLY  DENIED  TO  THE  NEGRO.  —  HE  is  TAXED 
FOR  THE  EDUCATION  OF  THE  WHITES.  —  DISPROPORTION  OF  BURDENS  PLACED  UPON 
HIM.  —  REVIEW  OF  THE  BLACK  CODE.  —  SOME  DETAILS  OF  ITS  PROVISIONS.  —  IN- 
CREDIBLY CRUEL. — THE  SOUTH  WITHOUT  EXCUSE  FOR  ITS  ENACTMENT.  —  THEIR 
DETERMINATION  TO  VINDICATE  SLAVERY. — To  BRING  REPROACH  ON  THE  NORTH. 

—  INFLUENCE  OF  THESE  PROCEEDINGS  ON  MR.   SEWARD.  —  His  MODE  OF   SELF- 
JUSTIFICATION. —  SEVERELY  CENSURED  BY  HIS  OLD  SUPPORTERS. — MISLED  BY  THE 
COURSE  OF  EVENTS.  — His  Loss  OF  POPULARITY. 

A  GREAT  opportunity  was  now  given  to  the  South.  It  was 
given  especially  to  the  leading  men  of  the  South.  Only  a 
few  weeks  before,  they  had  all  been  expecting  harsh  treatment, 
many,  indeed,  anticipated  punishment,  not  a  few  were  dejectedly 
looking  forward  to  a  life  of  exile  and  want.  The  President's  policy, 
which  had  been  framed  for  him  by  Mr.  Seward,  changed  all  this. 
Confidence  took  the  place  of  apprehension,  the  fear  of  punishment 
was  removed,  those  who  conscious  of  guilt  had  been  dreading  expa- 
triation were  bidden  by  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Nation  to  stay 
in  their  own  homes,  and  to  assist  in  building  up  the  waste  and  deso- 
late places. 

84 


THE  PROGRESS  OF  RECONSTRUCTION.          85 

Never  in  the  history  of  the  world  had  so  mighty  a  rebellion  been 
subdued.  Never  had  any  rebellion  been  followed  by  treatment  so 
lenient,  forgiving,  and  generous  on  the  part  of  the  triumphant  Gov- 
ernment. The  great  mass  of  those  who  had  resisted  the  National 
authority  were  restored  to  all  their  rights  of  citizenship  by  the  simple 
taking  of  an  oath  of  future  loyalty,  and  those  excepted  from  imme- 
diate re-instatement  were  promised  full  forgiveness  on  the  slightest 
exhibition  of  repentance  and  good  works.  Mr.  Seward  believed,  and 
had  induced  the  President  to  believe,  that  frank  and  open  generosity 
on  the  part  of  the  Government  would  be  responded  to  in  like  spirit 
on  the  part  of  those  who  had  just  emerged  from  rebellion.  The 
Administration,  therefore,  waited  with  confidence  for  its  justification, 
which  could  be  made  complete  only  by  the  display  of  a  manly  appre- 
ciation and  noble  course  on  the  part  of  those  who  had  participated 
in  the  Rebellion. 

The  desire  for  a  complete  restoration  of  all  the  States  to  their 
normal  position,  as  pictured  so  attractively  by  Mr.  Seward,  was 
general  and  deep  throughout  the  North.  The  policy  of  the  Presi- 
dent was  therefore  essentially  aided  by  the  patriotic  and  ardent  love 
for  the  Union,  —  a  love  always  present  with  the  loyal  people  of  the 
free  States,  but  developed  in  an  extraordinary  degree  by  the  costly 
struggle  which  the  slaveholders'  rebellion  had  precipitated.  If  the 
Southern  States  should  meet  the  overture  of  the  Administration 
in  the  spirit  in  which  it  was  made,  the  probability  was  decidedly  in 
favor  of  their  restoration  to  their  old  places  without  condition,  with- 
out promise,  without  sacrifice.  Observing  men  in  the  loyal  States 
regarded  such  a  policy  not  only  as  weak  and  maudlin,  but  as  utterly 
insufficient  and  assuredly  dangerous  to  the  future  safety  of  the 
Government.  But  they  realized  at  the  same  time  that  the  most 
important  demands  of  far-seeing  statesmanship  and  of  true  patriotism 
might  be  disregarded,  and  even  contemned,  by  a  wild,  unreasoning 
wish  of  the  people  to  see  the  old  Government,  in  all  its  parts, 
promptly  and  fully  re-established.  The  popular  cry  which  demanded 
"  the  Union  as  it  was,  the  Constitution  as  it  is,"  was  echoed  by  many 
from  emotional  love  of  country,  and  by  many  more  from  a  conviction 
that  the  financial  interests  of  the  Government  and  the  commercial 
interests  of  the  people  called  for  the  speediest  settlement  of  all 
political  questions.  The  Administration  believed,  and  with  good 
reason,  that  the  combined  influence  of  sentiment  for  the  Union  and 
the  supposed  necessities  of  trade  would  overcome  all  obstacles,  and 


86  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

that  the  rebellious  States  would  be  so  promptly  and  completely  recon- 
structed that  their  senators  and  representatives  would  be  admitted 
at  the  beginning  of  the  next  session  of  Congress. 

In  forming  an  estimate  of  the  probable  response  of  the  South  to 
the  plan  of  reconstruction  now  submitted,  the  Administration  was 
certainly  justified  in  believing  that  its  own  spirit  of  liberality  and 
good  will  would  be  met  with  like  spirit  by  those  who,  having  failed 
in  war,  were  specially  interested  in  promptly  securing  all  the  con- 
ditions of  a  magnanimous  peace.  It  could  not  anticipate  that 
quibbles  would  be  made  by  the  defeated  and  lately  suppliant  parties, 
that  captious  objections  would  be  interposed,  that  carping  criticism 
would  be  indulged,  that  gross  outrages  would  be  perpetrated,  that 
absurd  conditions  would  be  demanded,  and  that  finally  a  postpone- 
ment of  the  whole  procedure  would  be  hazarded,  indeed  its  utter 
failure  secured,  by  the  lack  of  tact,  by  the  willfulness,  and  by  the 
apparent  ignorance  of  the  Southern  men  who  were  in  control. 

The  kindness,  consideration,  gentleness  of  Mr.  Seward's  recom- 
mendations, instead  of  securing  a  return  of  like  feeling,  seemed 
rather  to  inflame  the  misjudging  men  of  the  South  with  a  new  sense 
of  resentment.  Instead  of  calling  forth  the  natural  and  proper 
response,  it  appeared  rather  to  impress  them  afresh  with  that  vain 
imagination  of  Northern  timidity  which  had  always  been  the  beset- 
ting weakness  of  the  South.  It  seemed  impossible  at  the  time,  it 
seems  even  more  plainly  impossible  on  a  review  of  the  facts  after  the 
lapse  of  years,  that  any  body  of  reasonable  men  could  behave  with 
the  ineffable  folly  that  marked  the  proceedings  of  the  Reconstruction 
Conventions  in  the  South,  and  the  still  greater  folly  that  governed 
the  succeeding  Legislatures  of  the  lately  rebellious  States. 

In  the  President's  proclamation  accompanying  the  appointment 
of  provisional  governors  he  had  taken  the  ground  that  "  the  Rebel- 
lion, in  its  revolutionary  progress,  has  deprived  the  people  (of  the 
revolting  States)  of  all  civil  Government."  It  is  evident,  therefore, 
that  the  President  —  eager  and  even  impatient  as  he  was  for  the  pro- 
cess of  reconstruction  to  be  completed  —  expected  that  a  new  Govern- 
ment would  be  built  on  the  full  recognition  of  the  new  order  of 
things,  casting  behind  all  that  pertained  to  the  old,  or  had  the  spirit 
of  the  old.  "  No  man  putteth  a  piece  of  new  cloth  unto  an  old  gar- 
ment, for  that  which  is  put  in  to  fill  it  up  taketh  from  the  garment, 
and  the  rent  is  made  worse."  This  Scripture  was  exactly  applicable 
to  the  Southern  Conventions  which  assembled  for  reconstruction. 


RECONSTRUCTION  CONVENTIONS  OF  THE  SOUTH.  87 

They  could  begin  anew  with  organic  laws  adapted  to  the  great  revo- 
lution which  had  swept  over  them,  or  they  could  patch  up  the  old 
constitutions  now  become  indissolubly  associated  with  a  Rebellion 
which  had  been  fostered  and  protected  under  their  provisions.  In 
every  State  the  Southern  leaders  chose  the  latter  form  of  procedure. 
They  assumed  that  the  old  constitutions  were  still  in  full  force  and 
vigor,  and  they  made  only  such  amendments  to  them  as  would  in 
their  judgment  promptly  insure  to  their  States  the  right  of  repre- 
sentation in  Congress.  They  did  not  even  stop  to  submit  these 
changes  to  the  popular  vote,  but  assumed  for  their  own  assemblage 
of  oligarchs  the  full  power  to  modify  the  organic  laws  of  their 
States  —  an  assumption  without  precedent  and  without  repetition 
in  the  history  of  State  constitutions  in  this  country,  and  utterly 
subversive  of  the  fundamental  idea  of  Republican  Government. 

With  these  incomplete  and  ill-digested  changes  in  the  organic 
laws  of  their  respective  States,  the  Reconstruction  Conventions 
usurped  legislative  power,  and  hastily  proceeded  to  order  the  elec- 
tion of  representatives  in  Congress.  The  Congressional  elections 
proved  to  be  little  else  than  partisan  assemblages  under  the  dicta- 
torial direction  of  rebel  authorities — just  as  the  Reconstruction 
Conventions  were,  in  their  membership  and  their  organization,  little 
else  than  consulting  bodies  of  Confederate  officers  under  the  rank  of 
brigadier-general,  actually  sitting  throughout  their  deliberations  in 
the  uniform  of  the  rebel  service,  and  apparently  dictating  to  the 
Government  of  the  Union  the  grounds  on  which  they  would  consent 
to  resume  representation  in  the  National  Congress.  A  joint  com- 
mittee of  Congress  subsequently  commented  with  appropriate  direct- 
ness upon  this  offensive  phase  of  the  Southern  Conventions.  "  Hardly 
is  the  war  closed,"  said  the  committee,  "  before  the  people  of  the 
insurrectionary  States  come  forward  and  haughtily  claim,  as  a  right, 
the  privilege  of  participating  at  once  in  that  Government  which  they 
have  for  four  years  been  fighting  to  overthrow.  Allowed  and  en- 
couraged by  the  Executive  to  organize  State  Governments,  they  at 
once  placed  in  power  leading  rebels,  unrepentant  and  unpardoned, 
excluding  with  contempt  those  who  had  manifested  an  attachment 
to  the  Union,  and  preferring  in  many  instances  those  who  had 
rendered  themselves  peculiarly  obnoxious.  In  the  face  of  the  law 
requiring  an  oath  that  would  necessarily  exclude  all  such  men  from 
Federal  offices,  they  have  elected,  with  very  few  exceptions,  as  sena- 
tors and  representatives  in  Congress,  the  very  men  who  have  actively 


88  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

participated  in  the  Rebellion,  insultingly  denouncing  the  law  as  un- 
constitutional." 

The  oath  referred  to  in  the  foregoing  extract  from  the  committee's 
report  is  that  popularly  known  as  the  "  Ironclad  oath,"  prescribed 
by  the  Act  of  July  2,  1862,  to  be  taken  by  every  person  elected  or 
appointed  to  any  office  of  honor  or  profit  under  the  Government  of 
the  United  States,  either  in  the  civil,  military,  or  naval  departments 
of  the  public  service,  the  President  alone  excepted.  The  officer, 
before  entering  upon  his  duties  or  receiving  any  emolument,  was 
compelled  to  swear  that  he  had  "never  voluntarily  borne  arms 
against  the  United  States ; "  that  he  had  "  voluntarily  given  no  aid, 
countenance,  counsel,  or  encouragement  to  persons  engaged  in  armed 
hostility  to  the  National  Government ; "  that  he  had  "  neither  sought 
nor  accepted  nor  attempted  to  exercise  the  functions  of  any  office 
whatever  under  authority  or  pretended  authority  in  hostility  to  the 
United  States ; "  that  he  had  "  never  yielded  a  voluntary  support  to 
any  pretended  Government  within  the  United  States,  hostile  or 
inimical  thereto."  Of  course  the  men  who  had  been  waging  war 
against  the  Government  could  not  take  this  oath  except  by  com- 
mitting perjury  and  risking  its  pains  and  penalties.  But  nothing 
daunted  by  the  existence  of  this  obstacle  at  the  threshold  of  public 
service,  the  most  notorious  rebels  sought  election  to  the  Senate  and 
House,  boasting  that  they  would  prove  the  unconstitutionality  of  the 
Ironclad  oath,  and  demand  their  seats. 

Alexander  H.  Stephens  "had  the  assurance,"  as  the  committee 
already  quoted  declared,  "with  that  oath  staring  him  in  the  face,  to 
lay  his  credentials  on  the  table  of  the  Senate  as  a  senator-elect  from 
Georgia."  When  Congress  adjourned,  March  3,  1865,  Mr.  Stephens 
was  acting  as  the  Vice-President  of  the  rebel  Confederacy.  Six  weeks 
later  the  Confederacy  was  destroyed,  and  with  a  political  agility  un- 
paralleled, with  a  degree  of  presumption  unprecedented,  Mr.  Stephens 
secured  an  election  to  the  Senate,  and  was  in  Washington  at  the 
ensuing  session  of  Congress,  asking  admission  to  a  seat  as  coolly  as 
if  every  living  man  had  forgotten  that  for  four  years  he  had  been  ex- 
erting his  utmost  effort  to  destroy  the  Constitution  under  which  he 
now  claimed  the  full  rights  of  a  citizen.  In  his  astounding  effrontery 
Mr.  Stephens  even  went  so  far  as  to  insist  on  interpreting  to  those 
loyal  men,  who  had  been  conducting  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  through  all  its  perils,  the  Constitution  under  which  they  had 
been  acting,  and  to  point  out  how  they  were  depriving  him  of  his 


RECONSTRUCTION  CONVENTIONS  OF  THE  SOUTH.  89 

rights  by  demanding  an  oath  of  loyalty  and  good  faith  as  the  condi- 
tion on  which  he  should  be  entitled  to  take  part  in  legislating  for  the 
restored  Union.  The  same  committee,  worthy  at  all  times  to  be 
cited,  declared  further,  that  "  Other  rebels  of  scarcely  less  note  and 
notoriety  than  Mr.  Stephens  were  selected  from  other  quarters.  Pro- 
fessing no  repentance,  glorying  apparently  in  the  crime  they  had 
committed,  avowing  still,  as  the  uncontradicted  testimony  of  Mr. 
Stephens  and  many  others  proves,  an  adherence  to  the  pernicious 
doctrine  of  secession,  and  declaring  that  they  yielded  only  to  neces- 
sity, they  insist  with  unanimous  voice  upon  their  rights  as  States, 
and  proclaim  that  they  will  submit  to  no  conditions  whatever  as 
preliminary  to  their  resumption  of  power  under  that  Constitution 
which  they  still  claim  the  right  to  repudiate" 

Not  only  were  the  official  acts  of  the  Southern  Conventions 
inspired  by  a  spirit  of  apparently  irreconcilable  hatred  of  the  Union, 
but  the  popular  manifestations  in  the  South  were  far  more  decided 
in  the  same  direction.  A  sense  of  official  propriety,  no  doubt,  in 
some  degree  governed  the  conduct  and  modified  the  language  of 
the  members  of  the  conventions.  It  was  left  to  the  press  and  the 
stump-orators  of  the  South  to  give  full  expression  to  what  they  knew 
to  be  the  ruling  sentiment  of  the  people.  The  report  of  the  Con- 
gressional Committee,  whose  members  had  closely  investigated  all  the 
facts,  stated  that  "  the  Southern  press,  with  few  exceptions,  abounds 
with  weekly  and  daily  abuse  of  the  institutions  and  people  of  the 
loyal  States ;  defends  the  men  who  led,  and  the  principles  which 
incited,  the  Rebellion ;  denounces  and  reviles  Southern  men  who 
adhered  to  the  Union ;  and  strives  constantly  and  unscrupulously, 
by  every  means  in  its  power,  to  keep  alive  the  fire  and  hate  and  dis- 
cord between  the  sections ;  calling  upon  the  President  to  violate  his 
oath  of  office,  overturn  the  Government  by  force  of  arms,  and  drive 
the  representatives  of  the  people  from  their  seats  in  Congress.  The 
National  banner  is  openly  insulted  and  the  National  airs  scoffed  at, 
not  only  by  an  ignorant  populace,  but  at  public  meetings,  and  once, 
among  other  notable  instances,  at  a  dinner  given  in  honor  of  a  noto- 
rious rebel,  who  had  violated  his  oath  and  abandoned  his  flag.  The 
same  individual  is  elected  to  an  important  office  in  the  leading  city 
of  his  State,  although  an  unpardoned  rebel,  and  so  offensive  that  the 
President  refuses  to  allow  him  to  enter  upon  his  official  duties.  In 
another  State  the  leading  general  of  the  rebel  armies  is  openly  nom- 
inated for  governor  by  the  House  of  Delegates,  and  the  nomination 


90  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

is  hailed  by  the  people  with  shouts  of  satisfaction  and  openly  indorsed 
by  the  press." 

These  representations  of  the  prevailing  spirit  in  the  South  and  of 
the  conduct  of  Southern  men  were  not  the  loose  and  exaggerated 
statements  of  Northern  partisans  put  forth  to  influence  political 
opinion  in  the  loyal  States.  They  were  the  deliberate  and  consci- 
entious statements  of  an  eminent  committee  of  the  two  Houses  of 
Congress,  of  which  Senator  Fessendeii  of  Maine  was  chairman.  The 
quotations  already  made  are  from  the  same  official  report  —  a  report 
based  upon  exhaustive  testimony  and  prepared  with  scrupulous  care. 
In  that  report,  which  is  to  be  taken  as  an  absolutely  truthful  picture 
of  the  Southern  States  at  the  time,  it  is  averred  that  "witnesses  of 
the  highest  character  testify  that,  without  the  protection  of  United- 
States  troops,  Union  men,  whether  of  Northern  or  Southern  origin, 
would  be  obliged  to  abandon  their  homes.  The  feeling  in  many  por- 
tions of  the  country  towards  the  emancipated  slaves,  especially  among 
the  ignorant  and  uneducated,  is  one  of  vindictive  and  malicious 
hatred.  The  deep-seated  prejudice  against  color  is  assiduously  cul- 
tivated by  the  public  journals  and  leads  to  acts  of  cruelty,  oppres- 
sion, and  murder,  which  the  local  authorities  are  at  no  pains  to 
prevent  or  punish." 

It  was  further  declared  by  Mr.  Fessenden's  committee  "  that  the 
evidence  of  an  intense  hostility  to  the  Federal  Union,  and  an  equally 
intense  love  for  the  late  Confederacy,  nurtured  by  the  war,  is  deci- 
sive. While  it  appears  that  nearly  all  are  willing  to  submit,  at  least 
for  the  time  being,  to  the  Federal  authority,  it  is  equally  clear  that 
the  ruling  motive  is  a  desire  to  obtain  the  advantages  which  will  be 
derived  from  a  representation  in  Congress."  It  was  also  proved 
before  the  committee,  on  the  testimony,  or  rather  the  admissions,  of 
witnesses  who  had  been  prominent  in  the  Rebellion,  that  "  the  gen- 
erally prevailing  opinion  in  the  late  Confederacy  defends  the  legal 
right  of  secession  and  upholds  the  doctrine  that  the  first  allegiance 
of  the  people  is  due  to  the  States  and  not  to  the  United -States."  It 
was  further  admitted  by  the  same  class  of  witnesses  that  "  the  taxes 
levied  by  the  United  States  will  be  paid  only  on  compulsion  and  with 
great  reluctance,"  and  that  "  the  people  of  the  rebellious  States  would, 
if  they  could  see  a  prospect  of  success,  repudiate  the  National  debt." 
It  was  stated  by  witnesses  from  the  South,  with  evident  pride,  that 
"  officers  of  the  Union  Army,  on  duty  in  the  South,  and  Northern 
men  who  go  there  to  engage  in  business,  are  generally  detested  and 


SOUTHERN  SENATORS  AND  REPRESENTATIVES.  91 

proscribed,"  and  that  "  Southern  men  who  adhered  to  the  Union  are 
bitterly  hated  and  relentlessly  persecuted." 


Upon  the  conclusion  of  the  work  of  the  respective  conventions, 
the  election  of  State  Legislatures  and  of  senators  and  representatives 
in  Congress  followed  as  promptly  as  was  practicable  in  the  several 
States.  The  Legislatures  were  all  in  session  before  the  close  of  the 
year  1865,  and  their  proceedings  startled  the  country.  If  any  need 
existed  for  proof  of  the  spirit  that  animated  the  conventions,  or  of 
the  ends  to  which  they  had  directed  their  work,  it  was  furnished  in 
full  by  the  action  of  the  Legislatures.  Indeed,  when  the  latter  bodies 
assembled,  they  were  inspired  with  a  fresh  accession  of  courage  and 
daring,  imparted  by  the  example  of  the  former  and  the  apparent 
acquiescence  of  the  North  in  their  proceedings.  The  period  between 
the  adjournment  of  the  conventions  and  the  assembling  of  the  Legis- 
latures was  so  short  that  there  was  no  time  for  the  maturing  of  public 
opinion  in  the  North,  and  still  less  for  bringing  it  to  bear  in  any  way 
upon  Southern  action.  It  is,  moreover,  doubtful  whether  any  rep- 
resentation, however  strong,  from  the  North,  would  have  exerted  the 
slightest  influence  in  holding  the  South  back  from  its  mad  course. 
Emboldened  by  the  support  of  the  National  Administration,  the 
Southern  leaders  believed  that  they  could  carry  their  designs  through, 
and,  instead  of  being  restrained  by  the  protest  or  the  advice  of  Repub- 
licans, they  chose  with  apparent  gladness  the  course  that  would  prove 
most  offensive  to  them.  It  would  indeed,  according  to  their  own 
boasts,  add  a  peculiar  gratification  to  their  anticipated  triumph  if  they 
could  feel  assured  that  it  would  bring  chagrin  or  a  sense  of  humilia- 
tion to  the  Republican  masses  of  the  loyal  States. 

At  this  critical  period  it  was  the  ill  fortune  of  the  South  to  be 
misled  by  the  Democratic  press  and  the  Democratic  orators  of  the 
North,  as  it  had  been  before  on  perilous  occasions.  The  South  had 
been  induced  by  the  same  press  and  the  same  orators  to  believe,  in 
the  winter  of  1860-61,  that  efforts  at  secession  would  not  be  resisted 
by  arms.  Many  Northern  Democrats  had  indeed  given  the  assur- 
ance that  if  any  attempt  at  coercion  should  be  made  by  the  Repub- 
lican National  Administration,  they  would  themselves  meet  it  with 
force,  and  that,  if  war  should  come,  it  would  be  in  the  free  States 
and  not  in  the  slave  States.  The  South,  in  1865,  had  apparently 


92  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

forgotten  these  baseless  assurances ;  they  had  forgotten  that,  in  the 
hour  of  conflict,  the  Democrats  who  did  not  become  loyal,  at  once 
became  silent,  and  that  the  few — scattering  exceptions  to  a  general 
rule  —  who  were  demonstrative  and  loud  in  their  sympathy  for  the 
rebels  were  compelled  to  flee  or  accept  imprisonment  in  Fort  Lafay- 
ette. They  seemed  again  ready  and  eager  to  believe  all  the  un- 
supported assertions  which  the  Northern  Democrats,  in  a  spirit  of 
effrontery  and  not  without  gasconade,  ventured  to  put  forth.  It 
might  be  difficult  to  determine  which  displayed  the  greater  folly 
—  those  who  made  false  representations,  or  those  who,  warned  by 
previous  deception,  appeared  so  ready  to  be  influenced  anew  by 
deception  equally  gross. 

The  truth  was  that  the  Republicans  of  the  North,  constituting, 
as  was  shown  by  the  elections  of  1865,  a  majority  in  every  State, 
were  deeply  concerned  as  to  the  fate  ar-rl  fortune  of  the  colored  popu- 
lation of  the  South.  Only  a  minority  of  Republicans  were  ready  to 
demand  suffrage  for  those  who  had  been  recently  emancipated,  and 
who,  from  the  ignorance  peculiar  to  servitude,  were  presumably  unfit 
to  be  intrusted  with  the  elective  franchise.  The  minority,  however, 
was  composed  of  very  earnest  men  of  the  same  type  as  those  who 
originally  created  and  combined  the  anti-slavery  sentiment  of  the 
country,  and  who  now  espoused  the  right  of  the  negro  to  equality 
before  the  law.  Equality,  they  believed,  could  neither  be  conferred 
nor  maintained  unless  the  negro  were  invested  with  the  badge  of 
American  manhood  —  the  right  to  vote  —  a  right  which  they  were 
determined  to  guarantee  as  firmly  to  the  colored  man  as  it  was 
already  guaranteed  to  the  white  man. 

The  great  mass  of  the  Republicans  stopped  short  of  the  demand 
for  the  conferment  of  suffrage  on  the  negro.  That  privilege  was, 
indeed,  still  denied  him  in  a  majority  of  the  loyal  States,  and  it 
seemed  illogical  and  unwarrantable  to  expect  a  more  advanced  phi- 
lanthropy, a  higher  sense  of  justice,  from  the  South  than  iad  been 
yet  attained  by  the  North.  But  without  raising  the  ^question  of 
suffrage,  there  were  rights  with  which  the  negro  must  be  endowed 
before  he  could  essentially  better  his  material  condition  or  advance 
in  knowledge.  It  was,  first  of  all,  required  that  he  should  have  the 
full  protection  of  the  law  of  marriage,  of  which  he  had  always  been 
deprived,  and  that  with  the  privilege  he  should  be  subjected  to  the 
honest  observance  of  the  obligations  which  marriage  imposes  —  to 
the  end  that  good  morals  should  be  inculcated,  and  that  every  child 


THE  LEGISLATURES  IN  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES.  93 

should  have  a  responsible  father.  It  was,  in  the  second  place,  in  the 
highest  degree  necessary  that  he  should  have  the  benefit  of  such  laws 
as  would  assure  to  him  the  wages  of  his  labor  and  confer  upon  him 
the  right  to  acquire  and  hold  real  estate  and  other  property,  with  the 
same  security  and  protection  enjoyed  by  the  whites.  In  the  third 
place,  it  was  imperatively  demanded  that  some  provision  be  made 
for  the  rudimentary  instruction  of  colored  children,  in  order  that 
they  might  learn  the  mechanical  arts  and  have  the  privilege  of 
working  at  such  callings  as  were  best  adapted  to  them.  The  list 
of  requirements  might  be  enlarged,  but  the  three  which  are  given 
represent  primary  and  indisputable  necessities,  without  the  con- 
cession and  free  establishment  of  which  the  negro,  with  nominal 
freedom,  would  be  in  a  worse  condition  than  if  he  had  been  left  in 
slavery. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  the  course  of  the  newly  organized  Legisla- 
tures was  watched  with  deep  and  jealous  interest.  It  was  in  their 
power  to  repair,  in  large  degree,  the  blunders  of  policy  —  nay,  the 
crimes  against  human  rights  —  which  the  Reconstruction  Conventions 
had  abetted  if  not  committed.  The  membership  of  the  Legislatures 
in  all  the  States  was  composed  wholly  of  those  who,  either  in  the  mili- 
tary or  civil  service,  had  aided  the  Rebellion.  If  in  such  an  organ- 
ization a  spirit  of  moderation  and  justice  should  be  shown,  if  consid- 
eration should  be  exhibited  for  the  negro,  even  so  far  as  to  assure  to 
him  the  inherent  rights  of  human  nature,  a  deep  impression  would 
be  made  on  the  conscience  and  the  public  opinion  of  the  North. 
Such  a  course  in  the  South  might,  indeed,  open  the  way  for  the 
success  of  the  simple  and  speedy  process  of  reconstruction,  upon 
which  Mr.  Seward  had  staked  his  reputation  as  a  statesman,  and  to 
which  Mr.  Johnson  had  pledged  the  power  and  committed  the  for- 
tunes of  his  Administration. 

As  soon  as  the  Southern  Legislatures  assembled,  it  was  made  evi- 
dent that  their  members  disregarded,  and  even  derided,  the  opinion 
of  those  who  had  conquered  the  Rebellion  and  held  control  of  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States.  If  the  Southern  men  had  intended, 
as  their  one  special  and  desirable  aim,  to  inflame  the  public  opinion 
of  the  North  against  them,  they  would  have  proceeded  precisely  as 
they  did.  They  treated  the  negro,  according  to  a  vicious  phrase 
which  had  at  one  time  wide  currency,  "  as  possessing  no  rights  which 
a  white  man  was  bound  to  respect."  Assent  to  the  Thirteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution  by  the  Southern  States  was  but  a 


94:  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

gross  deception  so  long  as  they  accompanied  it  with  legislation  which 
practically  deprived  the  negro  of  every  trace  of  liberty.  That  which 
was  no  offense  in  a  white  man  was  made  a  misdemeanor,  a  heinous 
crime,  if  committed  by  a  negro.  Both  in  the  civil  and  criminal  code 
his  treatment  was  different  from  that  to  which  the  white  man  was 
subjected.  He  was  compelled  to  work  under  a  series  of  labor  laws 
applicable  only  to  his  own  race.  The  laws  of  vagrancy  were  so 
changed  as,  in  many  of  their  provisions,  to  apply  only  to  him,  and 
under  their  operation  all  freedom  of  movement  and  transit  was  de- 
nied. The  liberty  to  sell  his  time  at  a  fair  market  rate  was  destroyed 
by  the  interposition  of  apprentice  laws.  Avenues  of  usefulness  and 
skill  in  which  he  might  specially  excel  were  closed  against  him  lest 
he  should  compete  with  white  men.  In  short  his  liberty  in  all  direc- 
tions was  so  curtailed  that  it  was  a  bitter  mockery  to  refer  to  him 
in  the  statutes  as  a  "  freedman."  The  truth  was,  that  his  liberty  was 
merely  of  form  and  not  of  fact,  and  the  slavery  which  was  abolished 
by  the  organic  law  of  a  Nation  was  now  to  be  revived  by  the  enact- 
ments of  a  State. 

Some  of  these  enactments  were  peculiarly  offensive,  not  to  say 
atrocious.  In  Alabama,  which  might  indeed  serve  as  an  example  for 
the  other  rebellious  States,  "stubborn  or  refractory  servants"  and 
"  servants  who  loiter  away  their  time  "  were  declared  by  law  to  be 
"  vagrants,"  and  might  be  brought  before  a  justice  of  the  peace  and 
fined  fifty  dollars ;  and  in  default  of  payment  they  might  be  "  hired 
out,"  on  three  days'  notice  by  public  outcry,  for  the  period  of  "six 
months."  No  fair  man  could  fail  to  see  that  the  whole  effect,  and 
presumably  the  direct  intent,  of  this  law  was  to  reduce  the  helpless 
negro  to  slavery  for  half  the  year — a  punishment  that  could  be 
repeated  whenever  desired,  a  punishment  sure  to  be  desired  for  that 
portion  of  each  recurring  year  when  his  labor  was  specially  valuable 
in  connection  with  the  cotton  crop,  while  for  the  remainder  of  the 
time  he  might  shift  for  himself.  By  this  detestable  process  the 
"  master  "  had  the  labor  of  the  "  servant "  for  a  mere  pittance ;  and 
even  that  pittance  did  not  go  to  the  servant,  but  was  paid  into  the 
treasury  of  the  county,  and  thus  relieved  the  white  men  from  their 
proper  share  of  taxation.  There  may  have  been  more  cruel  laws  en- 
acted, but  the  statute-books  of  the  world  might  be  searched  in  vain 
for  one  of  meaner  injustice. 

The  foregoing  process  for  restoring  slavery  in  a  modified  form 
was  applicable  to  men  or  women  of  any  age.  But  for  "  minors "  a 


UNJUST  LAWS  OF  SOUTHERN  STATES.  95 

more  speedy  and  more  sweeping  method  was  contrived  by  the  law- 
makers of  Alabama,  who  had  just  given  their  assent  to  the  Thir- 
teenth Amendment  to  the  Constitution.  They  made  it  the  "  duty  of 
all  sheriffs,  justices  of  the  peace,  and  other  civil  officers  of  the  several 
counties,"  to  report  the  "  names  of  all  minors  under  the  age  of  eigh- 
teen years,  whose  parents  have  not  the  means  or  who  refuse  to  sup- 
port said  minors,"  and  thereupon  it  was  made  the  duty  of  the  Court 
to  "  apprentice  said  minor  to  some  suitable  person  on  such  terms  as 
the  Court  may  direct."  Then  follows  a  suggestive  proviso  directing 
that  "  if  said  minor  be  the  child  of  a  freedman  "  (as  if  any  other  class 
were  really  referred  to !),  "the  former  owner  of  said  minor  shall  have 
the  preference;"  and  "the  judge  of  probate  shall  make  a  record 
of  all  the  proceedings,"  for  which  he  should  be  entitled  to  a  fee  of 
one  dollar  in  each  case,  to  be  paid,  as  this  atrocious  law  directed,  by 
"  the  master  or  mistress."  To  tighten  the  grasp  of  ownership  on  the 
minor  who  was  now  styled  an  apprentice,  it  was  enacted  in  almost 
the  precise  phrase  of  the  old  slave-code  that  "  whoever  shall  entice 
said  apprentice  from  his  master  or  mistress,  or  furnish  food  or  cloth- 
ing to  him  or  her,  without  said  consent,  shall  be  fined  in  a  sum  not 
exceeding  five  hundred  dollars." 

The  ingenuity  of  Alabama  legislators  in  contriving  schemes  to 
re-enslave  the  negroes  was  not  exhausted  by  the  odious  and  compre- 
hensive statutes  already  cited.  They  passed  an  Act  to  incorporate 
the  city  of  Mobile,  substituting  a  new  charter  for  the  old  one.  The 
city  had  suffered  much  from  the  suspension  and  decay  of  trade  dur- 
ing the  war,  and  it  was  in  great  need  of  labor  to  make  repairs  to 
streets,  culverts,  sewers,  wharves,  and  all  other  public  property.  By 
the  new  charter,  the  mayor,  aldermen,  and  common  council  were 
empowered  "  to  cause  all  vagrants,"  ..."  all  such  as  have  no  visi- 
ble means  of  support,"  ..."  all  who  can  show  no  reasonable  cause 
of  employment  or  business  in  the  city,"  ..."  all  who  have  no  fixed 
residence  or  cannot  give  a  good  account  of  themselves,"  ..."  or  are 
loitering  in  or  about  tippling-houses,"  "  to  give  security  for  their  good 
behavior  for  a  reasonable  time  and  to  indemnify  the  city  against  any 
charge  for  their  support,  and  in  case  of  their  inability  or  refusal  to 
give  such  security,  to  cause  them  to  be  confined  to  labor  for  a  lim- 
ited time,  not  exceeding  six  calendar  months,  which  said  labor  shall 
be  designated  by  the  said  mayor,  aldermen,  and  common  council, 
for  the  benefit  of  said  city." 

It  will  be  observed  even  by  the  least  intelligent  that  the  charge 


96  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

made  in  this  city  ordinance  was,  in  substance,  the  poverty  of  the 
classes  quoted  —  a  poverty  which  was  of  course  the  inevitable  result 
of  slavery.  To  make  the  punishment  for  no  crime  effective,  the  city 
government  was  empowered  "  to  appoint  a  person  or  persons  to  take 
those  sentenced  to  labor  from  their  place  of  confinement  to  the  place 
appointed  for  their  working,  and  to  watch  them  while  at  labor  and 
return  them  before  sundown  to  their  place  of  confinement ;  and,  if 
they  shall  be  found  afterwards  offending,  such  security  may  again  be 
required,  and  for  want  thereof  the  like  proceeding  may  again  be  had 
from  time  to  time,  as  often  as  may  be  necessary."  The  plain  mean- 
ing of  all  this  was,  that  these  helpless  and  ignorant  men,  having  been 
robbed  all  their  lives  of  the  fruit  of  their  labor  by  slavery,  and  being 
necessarily  and  in  consequence  poor,  must  be  punished  for  it  by 
being  robbed  again  of  all  they  had  honestly  earned.  If  they  stub- 
bornly continued  in  their  poverty,  the  like  proceeding  (of  depriving 
them  of  the  fruits  of  their  labor)  "  may  again  be  had  from  time  to 
time,  as  often  as  may  be  necessary."  It  would,  of  course,  be  found 
"  necessary  "  just  so  long  as  the  city  of  Mobile  was  in  need  of  their 
labor  without  paying  for  it. 

It  has  been  abundantly  substantiated,  by  impartial  evidence,  that 
when  these  grievous  outrages  were  committed  under  the  forms  of 
law,  by  the  joint  authority  of  the  Alabama  Legislature  and  the  city 
government  of  Mobile,  the  labor  of  thousands  of  willing  men  could 
be  hired  for  the  low  wages  of  twenty-five  cents  per  day,  with  an 
allowance  of  a  peck  of  corn-meal  and  four  pounds  of  bacon  for  each 
man  per  week.  It  does  not  change  the  character  of  the  crime 
against  these  humble  laborers,  but  it  certainly  enhances  its  degree 
that  the  law-makers  of  Alabama  preferred  an  oppressive  fraud  to  the 
honest  payment  of  a  consideration  so  small  as  to  be  almost  nominal. 
A  man  must  be  in  abject  poverty  when  he  is  willing  to  work  an 
entire  week  for  a  sum  usually  accorded  in  the  Northern  States  for 
the  labor  of  one  day.  But  only  a  community  blind  to  public  justice 
and  to  public  decency  as  well,  could  enact  a  law  that  in  effect 
declares  the  poverty  of  the  laborer  to  be  a  crime,  in  consideration  of 
which  he  shall  be  deprived  of  the  beggarly  mite  for  which  he  is 
willing  to  give  the  sweat  of  his  face. 

Apparently  fearing  that  the  operations  of  the  law  already  re- 
ferred to  would  not  secure  a  sufficient  number  of  laborers  for  the 
work  required  in  the  city,  the  law-makers  of  Alabama  authorized 
the  municipal  government  of  Mobile  to  "restrain  and  prohibit  the 


UNJUST  LAWS  OF  SOUTHERN  STATES.  97 

nightly  and  other  meetings  or  disorderly  assemblies  of  all  persons, 
and  to  punish  for  such  offenses  by  affixing  penalties  not  exceeding 
fifty  dollars  for  any  one  offense ;  and  in  case  of  the  inability  of  any 
such  person  to  pay  and  satisfy  said  fine  or  penalty  and  the  cost 
thereof,  to  sentence  such  person  to  labor  for  said  city  for  such  rea- 
sonable time,  not  exceeding  six  calendar  months,  for  any  one  offense, 
as  may  be  deemed  equivalent  to  such  penalty  and  costs,  which  labor 
shall  be  such  as  may  be  designated  by  the  mayor,  aldermen,  and 
common  councilmen  of  the  city." 

Power  was  thus  given  to  consider  any  evening  meeting  of  colored 
persons  a  disorderly  one,  and  to  arrest  all  who  were  participating  in 
it.  Nothing  was  more  natural  than  that  the  negroes,  with  their 
social  and  even  gregarious  habits,  should,  in  their  new  estate  of  free- 
dom, be  disposed  to  assemble  for  the  purpose  of  considering  their 
own  interests  and  their  future  prospects.  It  is  eminently  to  the  dis- 
credit of  the  State  of  Alabama  and  of  the  city  of  Mobile  that  so 
innocent  a  purpose  should  be  thwarted,  perverted,  made  criminal 
and  punished. 

The  fact  will  not  escape  attention  that  in  these  enactments  the 
words  "  master,"  "  mistress,"  and  "  servant "  are  constantly  used, 
and  that  under  the  operation  of  the  laws  a  form  of  servitude  was 
re-established,  more  heartless  and  more  cruel  than  the  slavery  which 
had  been  abolished.  Under  the  institution  of  slavery  a  certain 
attachment  would  spring  up  between  the  master  and  his  slave,  and 
with  it  came  a  certain  protection  to  the  latter  against  want  and 
against  suffering  in  his  old  age.  With  all  its  wrongfulness  and  its 
many  cruelties,  there  were  ameliorations  in  the  slave  system  which 
softened  its  asperities  and  enabled  vast  numbers  of  people  possessing 
conscience  and  character  to  assume  the  relation  of  master.  But  in 
the  treatment  of  the  colored  man,  now  proposed,  there  was  absolute 
heartlessness  and  rank  injustice.  It  was  proposed  to  punish  him  for 
no  crime,  to  declare  the  laborer  not  worthy  of  his  hire,  to  leave  him 
friendless  and  forlorn,  without  sympathy,  without  rights  under  the 
law,  socially  an  outcast  and  industrially  a  serf — a  serf  who  had  no 
connection  with  the  land  he  tilled,  and  who  had  none  of  the  protec- 
tion which  even  the  Autocracy  of  Russia  extended  to  the  lowliest 
creature  that  acknowledged  the  sovereignty  of  the  Czar. 

These  laws  were  framed  with  malignant  cunning  so  as  not  to  be 
limited  in  specific  form  of  words  to  the  negro  race,  but  they  were 
exclusively  confined  to  that  race  in  their  execution.  It  is  barely 

VOL.  II.  7 


98  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

possible  that  a  white  vagrant  of  exceptional  depravity  might,  now 
and  then,  be  arrested ;  but  the  negro  was  arrested  by  wholesale  on 
a  charge  of  vagrancy  which  rested  on  no  foundation  except  an  arbi- 
trary law  specially  enacted  to  fit  his  case.  Loitering  around  tippling- 
shops,  one  of  the  offenses  enumerated,  was  in  far  larger  proportion 
the  habit  of  white  men,  but  they  were  left  untouched  and  the  negro 
alone  was  arrested  and  punished.  In  the  exntire  code  this  deceptive 
form,  of  apparently  including  all  persons,  was  a  signally  dishonest 
feature.  The  makers  of  the  law  evidently  intended  that  it  should 
apply  to  the  negro  alone,  for  it  was  administered  on  that  basis  with 
rigorous  severity.  The  general  phrasing  was  to  deceive  people  out- 
side, and,  perhaps,  to  lull  the  consciences  of  some  objectors  at  home, 
but  it  made  no  difference  whatever  in  the  execution  of  the  statutes. 
White  men,  who  had  no  more  visible  means  of  support  than  the 
negro,  were  left  undisturbed,  while  the  negro,  whose  visible  means 
of  support  were  in  his  strong  arms  and  his  willingness  to  work,  was 
prevented  from  using  the  resources  conferred  upon  him  by  nature, 
and  reduced  not  merely  to  the  condition  of  a  slave,  but  subjected  to 
the  demoralization  of  being  adjudged  a  criminal. 

In  Florida  the  laws  resembled  those  of  Alabama,  but  were  per- 
haps more  severe  in  their  penalties.  The  "  vagrant  "  there  might  be 
hired  out  for  full  twelve  months,  and  the  money  arising  from  his 
labor,  in  case  the  man  had  no  wife  and  children,  was  directed  to  be 
applied  for  "the  benefit  of  the  orphans  and  poor  of  the  county," 
although  the  negro  had  been  declared  a  vagrant  because  he  had  no 
visible  means  of  support,  and  was  therefore  quite  as  much  in  need  of 
the  avails  of  his  labor  as  those  to  whom  the  law  diverted  them. 
Among  the  curious  enactments  of  that  State  was  one  to  establish 
and  organize  a  criminal  court  for  each  county,  empowered  to  exer- 
cise jurisdiction  in  the  trial  of  all  offenses  where  the  punishment  did 
riot  affect  the  life  of  the  offender.  It  is  obvious  that  the  law  was 
originated  mainly  for  the  punishment  of  negroes ;  and  ta  expedite  its 
work  it  was  enacted  that  "in  the  proceedings  of  said  court,  no  pre- 
sentment, indictment,  or  written  pleading  shall  be  required,  but  it 
shall  be  sufficient  to  put  the  party  accused  upon  his  or  her  trial, 
that  the  offense  and  facts  are  plainly  set  forth  with  reasonable  cer- 
tainty in  the  warrant  of  arrest."  It  was  further  provided  that  where 
fines  were  imposed  and  the  party  was  unable  to  pay  them,  "the 
county  commissioner  may  hire  out,  at  public  outcry,  the  said  party 
to  aiiy  person  who  will  take  him  or  her  for  the  shortest  time,  and 


UNJUST  LAWS  OF  SOUTHERN  STATES.  99 

pay  the  fine  imposed  and  the  cost  of  prosecution."  The  fines  thus 
paid  went  in  the  county  treasury  for  the  general  expenses  of  the 
county.  The  law  was  thus  cunningly  contrived  to  hurry  the  negro 
into  an  odious  form  of  slavery,  and  to  make  the  earnings  which  came 
from  his  hard  labor  pay  the  public  expenses,  which  were  legitimately 
chargeable  upon  the  property  of  the  county. 

Accompanying  the  Act  establishing  this  court  was  a  law  pre- 
scribing additional  penalties  for  the  commission  of  offenses  against 
the  State ;  and  this,  like  the  former,  was  framed  especially  for  the 
negro.  Its  first  section  provided  that  where  punishment  of  an 
offense  had  hitherto  been  limited  to  fine  or  imprisonment,  there 
should  be  superadded,  as  an  alternative,  the  punishment  of  standing 
in  the  pillory  for  one  hour,  or  whipping,  not  exceeding  thirty-nine 
lashes,  on  the  bare  back.  The  latter  punishment  was  reserved  ex- 
pressly for  the  negro.  It  was  provided  further  that  it  "shall  not 
be  lawful  for  any  negro,  mulatto,  or  person  of  color  to  own,  use,  or 
keep  any  bowie-knife,  dirk,  sword,  fire-arms,  or  ammunition  of  any 
kind,  unless  he  first  obtain  a  license  to  do  so  from  the  judge  of  pro- 
bate for  the  county  in  which  he  is  a  resident."  The  judge  could  issue 
the  license  to  him  only  upon  recommendation  of  two  respectable 
white  men.  Any  negro  attempting  to  keep  arms  of  any  kind  was 
to  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  compelled  to  "  forfeit  the 
arms  for  the  use  of  the  informer,  stand  in  the  pillory  "  (and  be  pelted 
by  the  mob)  "for  one  hour,  and  then  whipped  with  thirty-nine  lashes 
on  the  bare  back."  The  same  penalty  was  prescribed  for  any  person 
of  color  "  who  shall  intrude  himself  into  any  religious  or  other  public 
assembly  of  white  persons,  or  into  any  railroad-car  or  other  vehicle 
set  apart  for  the  accommodation  of  white  persons,"  and  with  a  mock 
show  of  impartiality  it  was  provided  that  a  white  man  intruding  him- 
self into  an  assembly  of  negroes,  or  into  a  negro-car,  might  be  sub- 
jected to  a  like  punishment.  This  restriction  upon  the  negro  was 
far  more  severe  than  that  imposed  in  the  days  of  slavery,  when,  in 
many  of  the  Southern  States,  the  gallery  of  the  church  was  per- 
mitted to  be  freely  occupied  by  them.  A  peculiarly  atrocious  dis- 
crimination against  the  negro  was  included  in  the  sixth  section  of 
the  law  from  which  these  quotations  are  made.  It  was  provided 
therein  that  "  if  any  person  or  persons  shall  assault  a  white  female 
with  intent  to  commit  rape,  or  be  accessory  thereto,  he  or  they,  upon 
conviction,  shall  suffer  death ; "  but  there  was  no  prohibition  and  no 
penalty  prescribed  for  the  same  crime  against  a  negro  woman.  She 


100  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

was  left  unprotected  by  law  against  the  brutal  lust  and  the  violence 
of  white  men. 

In  the  laws  of  South  Carolina  the  oppression  and  injustice  towards 
the  negro  were  conspicuously  marked.  The  restriction  as  to  fire- 
arms, which  was  general  to  all  the  States,  was  especially  severe.  A 
negro  found  with  any  kind  of  weapon  in  his  possession  was  punished 
by  "a  fine  equal  to  twice  the  value  of  the  weapon  so  unlawfully 
kept,  and,  if  that  be  not  immediately  paid,  by  corporal  punishment." 
Perhaps  the  most  radically  unjust  of  all  the  statutes  was  reserved 
for  this  State.  The  Legislature  enacted  that  "no  person  of  color 
shall  pursue  the  practice,  art,  trade,  or  business  of  an  artisan,  me- 
chanic, or  shopkeeper,  or  any  other  trade  or  employment  besides  that 
of  husbandry,  or  that  of  a  servant  under  contract  for  labor,  until  he 
shall  have  obtained  a  license  from  the  judge  of  the  District  Court, 
which  license  shall  be  good  for  one  year  only."  If  the  license  was 
granted  to  the  negro  to  be  a  shopkeeper  or  peddler,  he  was  com- 
pelled to  pay  a  hundred  dollars  a  year  for  it ;  and  if  he  wished  to 
pursue  the  rudest  mechanical  calling,  he  was  compelled  to  pay  a 
license-fee  of  ten  dollars.  No  such  fees  were  exacted  of  white  men, 
and  no  such  fees  were  exacted  of  the  free  black  man  during  the  era 
of  slavery.  Every  avenue  for  improvement  was  closed  against  him ; 
and  in  a  State  which  boasted  somewhat  indelicately  of  its  chivalric 
dignity,  the  negro  was  mercilessly  excluded  from  all  chances  to  better 
his  condition  individually,  or  to  improve  the  character  of  his  race. 

Mississippi  followed  in  the  general  line  of  penal  enactments  pre- 
scribed in  South  Carolina,  though  her  code  was  possibly  somewhat 
less  severe  in  the  deprivations  to  which  the  negro  was  subjected. 
It  was,  however,  bad  enough  to  stir  the  indignation  of  every  lover 
of  justice.  The  Legislature  had  enacted  a  law  that  "  if  the  laborer 
shall  quit  the  service  of  the  employer  before  the  expiration  of  his 
term  of  service  without  just  cause,  he  shall  forfeit  his  wages  for  that 
year  up  to  the  time  of  quitting."  Practically  the  negro  was  himself 
never  permitted  to  judge  whether  the  cause  which  drove  him  to  seek 
employment  elsewhere  was  just,  the  white  man  being  the  sole  arbiter 
in  the  premises.  It  was  provided  that  "  every  civil  officer  shall,  and 
every  person  may,  arrest  and  carry  back  to  his  or  her  legal  employer 
any  freedman,  free  negro  or  mulatto,  who  shall  have  quit  the  service 
of  his  or  her  employer  before  the  expiration  of  his  term  of  service 
without  good  cause,  and  said  officer  shall  be  *  entitled  to  receive  for 
arresting  and  carrying  back  every  deserting  employee  aforesaid  the 


UNJUST  LAWS  OF  SOUTHERN  STATES.  101 

sum  of  five  dollars,  and  ten  cents  per  mile  from  the  place  of  arrest 
to  the  place  of  delivery,  and  these  sums  shall  be  held  by  the  em- 
ployer as  a  set-off  for  so  much  against  the  wages  of  said  deserting 
employee  ;  provided  that  said  arrested  party,  after  being  so  returned 
home,  may  appeal  to  a  justice  of  the  peace,  or  a  member  of  the 
Board  of  Police,  who  shall  summarily  try  whether  said  appellant  is 
legally  employed  by  the  alleged  employer." 

It  requires  little  familiarity  with  Southern  administration  of  jus- 
tice between  a  white  man  and  a  negro  to  know  that  such  appeal  was 
always  worse  than  fruitless,  and  that  its  only  effect,  if  attempted, 
would  be  to  secure  even  harsher  treatment  than  if  the  appeal  had 
not  been  made.  The  provisions  for  enticing  a  negro  from  his  em- 
ployer, included  in  this  Act,  were  in  the  same  spirit  and  almost  in  the 
same  language  as  the  provisions  of  the  slave-code  applicable  to  the 
negro  before  the  era  of  emancipation.  The  person  "  giving  or  selling 
to  any  deserting  freedman,  free  negro  or  mulatto,  any  food,  raiment, 
or  other  things,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,"  and  might  be 
punished  by  a  fine  of  two  hundred  dollars  and  costs,  or  he  might  be 
put  into  prison,  and  be  also  sued  by  the  employer  for  damages. 
For  attempting  to  entice  any  freedman  or  free  negro  beyond  the 
limits  of  the  State,  the  person  offending  might  be  fined  five  hundred 
dollars ;  and  if  not  immediately  paid,  the  court  could  sentence  the 
delinquent  to  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  for  six  months.  The 
entire  code  of  Mississippi  for  freedmen  was  in  the  spirit  of  the  laws 
quoted.  Justice  was  defied,  and  injustice  incorporated  as  the  very 
spirit  of  the  laws.  It  was  altogether  a  shameless  proclamation  of 
indecent  wrong  on  the  part  of  the  Legislature  of  Mississippi. 

Louisiana  probably  attained  the  worst  eminence  in  this  vicious 
legislation.  At  the  very  moment  when  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress  was 
assembling  to  consider  the  condition  of  the  Southern  States  and  the 
whole  subject  of  their  reconstruction,  it  was  found  that  a  bill  was 
pending  in  the  Legislature  of  Louisiana  providing  that  "  every  adult 
freed  man  or  woman  shall  furnish  themselves  witK  a  comfortable  home 
and  visible  means  of  support  within  twenty  days  after  the  passage  of 
this  act"  and  that  "  any  freed  man  or  woman  failing  to  obtain  a  home 
and  support  as  thus  provided  shall  be  immediately  arrested  by  any 
sheriff  or  constable  in  any  parish,  or  by  the  police  officer  in  any  city 
or  town  in  said  parish  where  said  freedman  may  be,  and  by  them 
delivered  to  the  Recorder  of  the  parish,  and  by  him  hired  out,  by 
public  advertisement,  to  some  citizen,  being  the  highest  bidder,  for 


102  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

the  remainder  of  the  year."  And  in  case  the  laborer  should  leave 
his  employer's  service  without  his  consent,  "  he  shall  be  arrested  and 
assigned  to  labor  on  some  public  works  without  compensation  until 
his  employer  reclaims  him."  The  laborers  were  not  to  be  allowed  to 
keep  any  live-stock,  and  all  time  spent  from  home  without  leave  was 
to  be  charged  against  them  at  the  rate  of  two  dollars  per  day,  and 
worked  out  at  that  rate.  Many  more  provisions  of  the  same  general 
character  were  contained  within  the  bill,  the  whole  character  and 
scope  of  which  were  forcibly  set  before  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Wilson  of 
Massachusetts.  It  was  not  only  a  proof  of  cruelty  enacted  into  law, 
but  was  such  a  defiance  to  the  spirit  of  the  Emancipation  amendment 
that  it  subjected  the  Legislature  which  approved  the  amendment 
and  enacted  these  laws,  to  a  charge  of  inconsistency  so  grave  as  to 
make  the  former  act  appear  in  the  light  of  both  a  legal  and  moral 
fraud.  It  was  declaring  the  negro  to  be  free  by  one  statute,  and 
immediately  proceeding  to  re-enslave  him  by  another. 

By  a'  previous  law  Louisiana  had  provided  that  all  agricultural 
laborers  should  be  compelled  to  "make  contracts  for  labor  during 
the  first  ten  days  of  January,  for  the  entire  year."  With  a  demon- 
strative show  of  justice  it  was  provided  that  "  wages  due  shall  be  a 
lien  on  the  crop,  one-half  to  be  paid  at  times  agreed  by  the  parties, 
the  other  half  to  be  retained  until  the  completion  of  the  contract ; 
but  in  case  of  sickness  of  the  laborer,  wages  for  the  time  shall  be 
deducted,  and  where  the.  sickness  is  supposed  to  be  feigned  for  the 
purpose  of  idleness,  double  the  amount  shall  be  deducted ;  and  should 
the  refusal  to  work  extend  beyond  three  days,  the  negro  shall  be 
forced  to  labor  on  roads,  levees,  and  public  works  without  pay." 
The  master  was  permitted  to  make  deductions  from  the  laborer's 
wages  for  "  injuries  done  to  animals  or  agricultural  implements  com- 
mitted to  his  care,  or  for  bad  or  negligent  work,"  he,  of^course,  being 
the  judge.  "  For  every  act  of  disobedience  a  fine  of  one  dollar  shall 
be  imposed  upon  the  laborer ; "  and  among  the  cases  deemed  to  be 
disobedience  were  "  impudence,  swearing,  or  using  indecent  language 
in  the  presence  of  the  employer,  his  family,  or  his  agent,  or  quarreling 
or  fighting  among  one  another."  It  has  been  truthfully  said  of  this 
provision  that  the  master  or  his  agent  might  assail  the  ear  with  pro- 
faneness  aimed  at  the  negro  man,  and  outrage  every  sense  of  decency 
in  foul  language  addressed  to  the  negro  woman ;  but  if  one  of  the 
helpless  creatures,  goaded  to  resistance  and  crazed  under  tyranny, 
should  answer  back  with  impudence,  or  should  relieve  his  mind  with 


UNJUST  LAWS  OF  SOUTHERN  STATES.  103 

an  oath,  or  retort  indecency  upon  indecency,  he  did  so  at  the  cost  to 
himself  of  one  dollar  for  every  outburst.  The  agent  referred  to  in 
the  statute  was  the  well-known  overseer  of  the  cotton  region,  who  was 
always  coarse  and  often  brutal,  sure  to  be  profane,  and  scarcely  know- 
ing the  border-line  between  ribaldry  and  decency.  The  care  with 
which  the  law-makers  of  Louisiana  provided  that  his  delicate  ears 
and  sensitive  nerves  should  not  be  offended  with  an  oath  or  with  an 
indelicate  word  from  a  negro,  will  be  appreciated  by  all  who  have 
heard  the  crack  of  the  whip  on  a  Southern  plantation. 

The  wrongs  inflicted  under  the  name  of  law,  thus  far  recited, 
were  still  further  aggravated  in  a  majority  of  the  rebellious  States 
by  the  exaction  of  taxes  from  the  colored  men  to  an  amount  alto- 
gether disproportionate  to  their  property.  Indeed,  of  property  they 
had  none.  Just  emerging  from  a  condition  of  slavery  in  which  their 
labor  had  been  constantly  exacted  without  fee  or  reward  of  any  kind, 
it  was  impossible  that  they  could  be  the  owners  of  any  thing  except 
their  own  bodies.  Notwithstanding  this  fact,  the  negroes,  en  masse* 
were  held  to  be  subjects  of  taxation  in  the  State  Governments  about 
to  be  re-organized.  In  Georgia,  for  example,  a  State  tax  of  three 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars  was  levied  in  the  first  year  of 
peace.  The  property  of  the  State,  even  after  all  the  ruin  of  the-  war, 
exceeded  two  hundred  and  fifty  million  dollars.  This  tax,  therefore, 
amounted  to  less  than  one-seventh  of  one  per  cent  upon  the  aggregate 
valuation  of  the  State,  —  equal  to  the  imposition  of  only  a  dollar  and 
a  half  upon  each  thousand  dollars  of  property.  The  Legislature  of 
the  State  decreed,  however,  that  a  large  proportion  of  this  small  levy 
should  be  raised  by  a  poll-tax  of  a  dollar  per  head  upon-  every  man 
in  the  State  between  the  ages  of  twenty-one  and  sixty  years.  There 
were  in  Georgia  at  the  time  from  eighty-five  thousand  to  ninety 
thousand  colored  men  subject  to  the  tax :  peihaps,  indeed,  the 
number  reached  one  hundred  thousand.  It  was.  thus  ordained  that 
the  negroes,  who  had  no  property  at  all,  should  pay  one-third  as  much 
as  the  white  men,  who  had  two  hundred  and  fifty  millions-  of  property 
in  possession.  This  odious  and  unjust  tax  was;  stringently  exacted 
from  the  negro.  To  make  sure  that  not  one  should  escape,  the  tax 
was  held  as  a  lien  upon  his  labor,  and  the  employer  was  under  dis- 
traint to  pay  it.  In  Alabama  they  levied  for  the-  same  purpose  two 
dollars  on  every  person  between  the  ages  of  eighteen  and  fifty,  caus- 
ing a  still  larger  proportion  of  the  total  tax  to  fall  on  the  negro  than 
the  Georgia  law-makers  deemed  expedient. 


104  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Texas  followed  with  a  capitation  tax  of  a  dollar  per  head,  while 
Florida  levied  upon  every  inhabitant  between  the  ages  of  twenty- 
one  and  fifty-five  years  a  capitation  tax  of  three  dollars,  and  upon 
failure  or  refusal  to  pay  the  same  the  tax-collector  was  "  authorized 
and  required  to  seize  the  body  of  the  delinquent,  and  hire  him  out, 
after  five  days'  public  notice  before  the  door  of  the  Court  House,  to 
any  person  who  will  pay  the  said  tax  and  the  costs  incident  to  the 
proceedings  growing  out  of  said  arrest,  for  his  services  for  the  shortest 
period  of  time."  As  the  costs  as  well  as  the  capitation  tax  were  to 
be  worked  out  by  the  negro,  it  is  presumable  that,  in  the  spirit  of 
this  tax-law,  they  were  enlarged  to  the  utmost  limit  that  decency, 
according  to  the  standard  set  up  by  this  law,  would  permit.  It  is 
fair  to  presume  that,  in  any  event,  the  costs  would  not  be  less  than 
the  tax,  and  might,  indeed,  be  double  or  treble  that  amount.  As  a 
negro  could  not,  at  that  time,  be  hired  out  for  more  than  seven  dollars 
and  a  half  per  month,  the  plain  inference  is  that  for  the  support  of 
the  State  of  Florida  the  negro  might  be  compelled  to  give  one 
month's  labor  yearly.  Even  by  the  capitation  tax  alone,  without 
the  incident  of  the  costs,  every  negro  man  was  compelled  to  give  the 
gains  and  profits  of  nearly  two  weeks'  labor. 

A  poll-tax,  though  not  necessarily  limited  in  this  manner,  has 
usually  accompanied  the  right  of  suffrage  in  the  different  States  of 
the  Union,  but  in  the  rebellious  States  it  conferred  no  franchise. 
It  might  be  supposed  that  ordinary  generosity  would  have  devoted 
it  to  the  education  of  the  ignorant  class  from  which  it  was  forcibly 
wrung,  but  no  provision  of  the  kind  was  even  suggested.  Indeed, 
in  those  States  there  was  scarcely  an  attempt  made  to  provide  for 
the  education  of  the  freedmen,  and  the  suggestions  made  in  that 
^direction  carried  with  them  another  display  of  studied  wrong.  As 
;an  example  of  rank  injustice  the  course  of  the  Legislature  of  Florida 
may  be  profitably  cited.  That  body  passed  an  Act  concerning  schools 
for  freedmen,  in  which  the  governor  was  authorized  to  appoint  a 
superintendent  of  common  schools  for  freedmen,  and  in  each  county 
the  county  commissioners  were  authorized  to  appoint  assistant  super- 
intendents. These  officers  were  directed  to  "establish  schools  for 
freedmen  when  the  number  of  colored  children  in  any  county  will 
warrant  the  same,  provided  "  (and  the  proviso  is  one  of  great  signifi- 
cance) "  that  the  sums  hereinafter  authorized  shall  be  sufficient  to 
meet  the  expenses  thereof."  The  funds  provided  for  this  seemingly 
philanthropic  design  were  to  be  derived  exclusively  from  a  tax  upon 


UNJUST  LAWS  OF  SOUTHERN  STATES.  105 

the  colored  man.  The  law  directed  that  all  colored  men  between  the 
ages  of  twenty-one  and  fifty-five  years  should  pay  annually  a  dollar 
each,  to  be  collected  at  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  manner  as 
the  three-dollar  poll-tax,  which  should  be  paid  into  the  treasury  of  the 
State  for  the  use  of  the  freedmen,  and  should  constitute  a  fund  to  be 
denominated  "the  common-school  fund  for  the  education  of  freed- 
men." It  was  further  provided  in  this  law,  that  "  a  tuition-fee  shall 
be  collected  from  each  pupil,  under  such  regulations  as  the  superin- 
tendents shall  prescribe,  and  paid  into  the  treasury  as  a  portion  of 
the  common-school  fund  for  freedmen." 

The  salary  of  the  superintendents  of  the  schools  for  freedmen 
was  fixed  at  a  thousand  dollars,  and  of  the  county  superintendents  at 
two  hundred  dollars.  There  were,  at  that  time,  about  twelve  thou- 
sand negro  men  subject  to  the  capitation  tax  of  three  dollars,  already 
referred  to,  and  under  that  law  they  paid  thirty-six  thousand  dollars 
annually  into  the  State  Treasury  of  Florida;  but  the  school  law 
forbade  that  the  salary  of  superintendents  and  assistant  superin- 
tendents should  be  paid  from  the  fund  derived  from  tne  poll-tax. 
They  provided  that  it  should  be  chargeable  solely  to  the  fund  raised 
for  common  schools.  As  there  were  thirty-seven  counties  in  Florida 
at  that  time,  it  is  a  fair  presumption  that  twenty-five  of  them  had 
assistant  superintendents,  whose  aggregate  salaries  would  amount  to 
five  thousand  dollars.  With  the  superintendent's  salary,  which  was 
a  thousand  dollars,  a  draft  of  six  thousand  dollars  for  the  salaries  of 
white  men  was  at  once  made  upon  the  twelve  thousand  dollars  which 
were  to  be  collected  from  freedmen.  Every  teacher  who  was  to  teach 
in  these  schools  was  required  to  pay  five  dollars  for  his  certificate, 
which  also  went  into  the  school-fund;  and  the  end  of  the  whole 
matter  was,  that  a  bare  pittance  was  left  for  the  thirty  thousand 
negro  children  in  Florida  of  the  school  age.  The  whole  scheme  was 
a  ghastly  wrong,  one  which,  if  attempted  upon  that  class  of  any 
population  in  the  North  which  is  able  to  pay  only  a  poll-tax,  would 
consign  the  party  attempting  it  to  defeat  and  disgrace,  and,  if  its 
enforcement  were  attempted,  would  lead  to  riot  and  bloodshed. 

These  laws,  with  all  their  wrong  (even  a  stronger  word  might  be 
rightfully  employed),  were  to  become,  and  were,  indeed,  already  an 
integral  part  of  the  reconstruction  scheme  which  President  Johnson 
had  devised  and  proclaimed.  Whoever  assented  to  the  President's 
plan  of  reconstruction  assented  to  these  laws,  and,  beyond  that,  as- 
sented to  the  full  right  of  the  rebellious  States  to  continue  legislation 


106  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

of  this  odious  type.  It  was  at  once  seen  that  if  the  party  which 
had  insisted  upon  the  emancipation  of  the  slave  as  a  final  condition 
of  peace,  should  now  abandon  him  to  his  fate,  and  turn  him  over  to 
the  anger  and  hate  of  the  class  from  whose  ownership  he  had  been 
freed,  it  would  countenance  and  commit  an  act  of  far  greater  wrong 
than  was  designed  by  the  most  malignant  persecutor  of  the  race  in 
any  one  of  the  Southern  States.  When  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  acting  independently  of  the  Executive  power  of  the  Nation, 
decreed  emancipation  by  amending  the  Constitution,  it  solemnly 
pledged  itself,  with  all  its  power,  to  give  protection  to  the  emanci- 
pated at  whatever  cost  and  at  whatever  sacrifice.  No  man  could 
read  the  laws  which  have  been  here  briefly  reviewed  without  seeing 
and  realizing  that,  if  the  negro  were  to  be  deprived  of  the  protect- 
ing power  of  the  Nation  that  had  set  him  free,  he  had  better  at 
once  be  remanded  to  slavery,  and  to  that  form  of  protection  which 
cupidity,  if  not  humanity,  would  always  inspire. 

The  South  had  no  excuse  for  its  course,  and  the  leaders  of  its 
public  opinion  at  that  time  will  always,  and  justly,  be  held  to  a 
strict  accountability.  Even  the  paltry  pretext,  afterwards  so  often 
advanced,  that  they  were  irritated  and  maddened  by  the  interposi- 
tion of  carpet-bag  power,  does  not  avail  in  the  least  degree  for  the 
outrages  in  the  era  under  consideration.  When  Mr.  Johnson  issued 
his  proclamation  of  reconstruction,  the  hated  carpet-bagger  was  an 
unknown  element  in  the  Southern  States.  What  was  done  during 
the  year  immediately  following  the  surrender  of  the  rebel  armies 
was  done  at  Southern  suggestion,  done  by  Southern  men,  done  under 
the  belief  that  the  President's  policy  would  protect  them  in  it,  done 
with  a  fixed  and  merciless  determination  that  the  gracious  act  of 
emancipation  should  not  bring  amelioration  to  the  colored  race,  and 
that  the  pseudo-philanthropy,  as  they  regarded  the  anti-slavery  feel- 
ing in  the  North,  should  be  brought  into  contempt  before  the  world. 
They  deliberately  resolved  to  prove  to  the  public  opinion  of  man- 
kind that  the  negro  was  fit  only  to  be  a  chattel,  and  that  in  his 
misery  and  degradation,  sure  to  follow  the  iniquitous  enactments  for 
the  new  form  of  his  subjection,  it  would  be  proved  that  he  had  lost 
and  not  gained  by  the  conferment  of  freedom  among  a  population 
where  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  enjoy  it.  They  resolved  also  to 
prove  that  slavery  was  the  normal  and  natural  state  of  the  negro ; 
that  the  Northern  people,  in  taking  any  other  ground,  had  been  de- 
ceived by  a  sentiment  and  had  been  following  a  chimera ;  that  the 


MR.  SEWARD'S  EMBARRASSING  POSITION".  107 

Southern  people  alone  understood  the  question,  and  that  interference 
with  them  by  war  or  by  law  should  end  in  establishing  their  justifi- 
cation before  the  public  opinion  of  the  world.  The  Southern  men 
believed  and  boasted  that  they  would  subject  to  general  reproach  and 
expose  to  open  shame  that  whole  class  of  intermeddlers  and  fanatics 
(as  they  termed  opponents  of  slavery)  who  had  destroyed  so  many 
lives  and  wasted  so  much  treasure  in  attempting  the  impossible  and, 
even  if  possible,  the  undesirable. 


There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  objectionable  and  cruel  legisla- 
tion of  the  Southern  States — examples  of  which  might  be  indefinitely 
cited  in  addition  to  those  already  given  —  exerted  a  strong  influence 
upon  Mr.  Seward's  mind.  It  is  well  known  that,  to  those  who  were 
on  intimate  terms  with  him,  he  expressed  a  sorrowful  surprise  that 
the  South  should  respond  with  so  ill  a  grace  to  the  liberal  and  mag- 
nanimous tenders  of  sympathy  and  friendship  from  the  National  Ad- 
ministration. He  could  not  comprehend  why  confidence  did  not 
beget  confidence,  why  generosity  should  not  call  forth  generosity  in 
return.  There  are  good  reasons  for  believing  that  Mr.  Seward  de- 
sired some  modification  of  the  President's  policy  of  Reconstruction 
after  he  comprehended  the  spirit  which  had  been  exhibited  by  the 
Southern  Conventions,  and  the  still  more  objectionable  spirit  shown 
by  the  Southern  Legislatures.  His  philanthropic  nature,  the  record 
of  his  public  life,  his  great  achievements  in  the  anti-slavery  field,  all 
forbid  the  conclusion  that  he  could  knowingly  and  willingly  consent 
to  the  maltreatment  and  the  permanent  degradation  of  the  freedmen. 
If  he  had  no  higher  motive,  the  selfish  one  of  preserving  his  own 
splendid  fame  must  have  inspired  him. 

Mr.  Seward  had  reached  the  age  of  sixty-five  years,  and  he  surely 
could  not  consent  to  undo  the  entire  work  of  his  mature  manhood. 
Consistency,  it  is  true,  is  not  the  highest  trait  of  statesmanship. 
Crises  often  arise  in  the  conduct  of  National  affairs  when  cherished 
opinions  must  be  sacrificed  and  new  departures  taken.  But  this 
necessity  can  never  apply  to  that  class  of  political  questions  closely 
and  inseparably  allied  with  moral  obligation.  Mr.  Seward  had  him- 
self taught  the  nation  that  conflict  on  questions  involving  the  rights 
of  human  nature  is  irrepressible.  The  slavery  against  which  he  had 
warred  so  long  and  so  faithfully  had  been  abolished  in  vain  if  an- 


108  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

other  form  of  servitude,  even  more  degrading  in  some  of  its  aspects, 
was  to  take  its  place.  To  desert  the  colored  man,  and  leave  him  to 
his  fate,  undefended  and  defenseless  against  the  wrongs  already  per- 
petrated and  the  greater  wrongs  foreshadowed,  would  do  dishonor  to 
the  entire  spirit  of  Mr.  Se ward's  statesmanship,  and  would  certainly 
be  unworthy  of  his  fame. 

He  strove  no  doubt  to  persuade  himself,  as  Mr.  Marcy  had  done 
in  the  Cabinet  of  President  Pierce,  that  even  if  he  did  not  approve 
the  policy  pursued,  it  was  better  for  him  to  remain  and  prevent  many 
evils  sure  to  follow  if  he  should  resign.  Mr.  Seward  felt  moreover 
a  certain  embarrassment  in  deserting  the  Administration  after  he  had 
induced  the  President  to  adopt  the  very  policy  which  was  now  re- 
sulting adversely.  But  for  his  energetic  interposition  the  President 
would  have  been  executing  an  entirely  different  policy  —  one  of 
severe  and  perhaps  sanguinary  character.  After  persuading  Mr. 
Johnson  to  abandon  his  proposed  line  of  action  and  to  adopt  that 
which  Mr.  Seward  had  himself  originated,  it  might  well  occur  to  the 
distinguished  Secretary  of  State  that  good  faith  to  the  President  re- 
quired him  to  remain  at  his  post  and  aid  in  working  out  the  best 
result  possible.  It  would  to  Mr.  Seward's  apprehension  be  an  act 
of  unpardonable  selfishness  if  in  such  a  crisis  to  the  Republic  he 
should  seek  to  increase  his  own  popularity  in  the  Northern  States  by 
separating  from  Mr.  Johnson  who  had  generously  trusted  him  and 
cordially  accepted  his  leadership.  By  resigning  he  could  only  add 
to  the  excitement  which  he  especially  desired  to  allay,  whereas  he 
might  by  continuing  in  his  place  of  power  be  able  to  hold  a  part 
of  the  ground  which  would  all  be  finally  lost  if  he  should  join  the 
crusade  against  the  Administration.  Under  these  motives  Mr.  Sew- 
ard retained  his  portfolio.  He  staid  on  and  on,  continually  hoping 
to  do  some  act  of  patriotic  service,  and  steadily  losing  that  great 
host  of  friends  who  for  twenty  years  had  looked  to  him  with  un- 
faltering faith  for  counsel  and  direction. 

Many  who  had  been  steadfastly  devoted  to  Mr.  Seward  for  the 
whole  generation  in  which  he  had  been  prominent  in  public  affairs, 
never  could  become  reconciled  to  his  course  at  this  period.  Some, 
indeed,  refused  to  concede  to  him  the  benefit  of  worthy  motives. 
He  had,  as  they  believed  and  declared,  been  incurably  wounded  in 
his  pride,  and  disappointed  in  his  ambition,  when  Mr.  Lincoln,  then 
a  comparatively  unknown  man,  was  preferred  to  him  by  the  Repub- 
lican party  as  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency  in  1860.  He  had,  as 


MR.  SEWARD'S  EMBARRASSING  POSITION.  109 

they  believed,  bided  his  time  for  revenge.  During  the  war,  the 
pressure  of  patriotic  duty,  as  his  new  but  reluctant  enemies  alleged, 
held  him  steadily  to  his  old  faith ;  but  now,  when  he  could  do  it 
without  positive  danger  to  the  country,  he  was  bent  on  administering 
discipline  to  the  party  and  its  leaders.  They  likened  him  to  Mr. 
Van  Buren,  revengefully  defeating  General  Cass  in  1848;  to  Mr. 
Webster,  who  on  his  death-bed  gave  his  sympathy  to  the  party  which 
had  always  reviled  him ;  to  Mr.  Fillmore,  who  deserted  his  anti- 
slavery  professions  in  the  hour  of  most  pressing  responsibility. 
Comments  even  more  severe  were  made  by  many  who  had  been 
deeply  attached  to  Mr.  Seward,  and  had  deplored  his  defeat  at  Chi- 
cago. At  such  a  period  of  excitement,  it  was  not  possible  that  a 
man  of  Mr.  Seward's  exalted  position  could  in  any  degree  change  his 
party  relations  without  great  exasperation  on  the  part  of  old 
friends,  —  an  exasperation  sure  to  lead  to  extravagance  of  expression 
and  to  personal  injustice. 

Mr.  Seward's  course  at  this  period  must  not  be  judged  harshly  by 
a  standard  established  from  a  retrospective  view  of  the  circumstances 
surrounding  him.  It  is  more  just  to  consider  the  situation  as  it  ap- 
peared to  his  own  observation  when  his  eyes  were  turned  to  the 
future.  He  no  doubt  looked  buoyantly  forward,  according  to  his 
temperament,  trusting  always  to  the  healing  influences  of  time  and 
to  that  re-action  in  the  headlong  course  of  Southern  men  which  he 
felt  sure  would  be  brought  about  by  the  sting  of  personal  reflection 
and  by  the  power  of  public  opinion.  A  silver  lining  to  the  darkest 
cloud  was  always  visible  to  his  eye  of  faith,  and  he  now  brought  to 
the  contemplation  of  the  adverse  elements  in  the  political  field  a  full 
measure  of  that  confidence  which  had  always  sustained  him  when 
adverse  elements  in  the  field  of  war  caused  many  strong  hearts  to 
faint  and  grow  weary. 

The  course  of  events  developed  occasions  when  Mr.  Seward's  in- 
fluence proved  valuable  to  the  country,  but  it  did  not  serve  to  re- 
call his  popularity.  He  was  thwarted  and  defeated  at  all  points  by 
the  Southern  leaders  whom  he  had  induced  the  President  to  forgive 
and  re-instate.  These  men  had  originally  established  their  relations 
with  Mr.  Johnson  by  reason  of  Mr.  Seward's  magnanimous  interposi- 
tion. But  once  established  they  had  been  able,  from  motives  ad- 
verted to  in  the  preceding  chapter,  to  fasten  their  hold  upon  Mr. 
Johnson  even  to  the  exclusion  of  Mr.  Seward.  When  Mr.  Seward 
was  beaten  for  the  Presidential  nomination  in  a  convention  com- 


110  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

posed  of  anti-slavery  men  who  had  learned  their  creed  from  him, 
Senator  Toombs,  in  a  tone  full  of  exultation  but  not  remarkable  for 
delicacy,  declared  that  "  Actseon  had  been  devoured  by  his  own  dogs." 
The  fable  would  be  equally  applicable  in  describing  the  manner  in 
which  the  Southern  men,  who  owed  their  forgiveness  and  their  immu- 
nity to  Mr.  Seward,  turned  upon  him  with  hatred  and  with  impreca- 
tion. They  were  graciously  willing  to  accept  benefits  and  favors  at 
his  hands  so  long  as  he  would  dispense  them,  but  they  never  forgave 
him  for  the  work  of  that  grand  period  of  his  life,  between  his  election 
to  the  Senate  and  the  outbreak  of  the  civil  war,  when  he  wrought 
most  nobly  for  humanity  and  established  a  fame  which  no  error  of 
later  life  could  blot  from  the  minds  of  a  grateful  people. 

Mr.  Seward  could  not  have  been  surprised  at  the  treatment  he 
thus  received.  He  had  for  nearly  half  a  century  been  an  intelligent 
observer  of  the  political  field,  and  he  could  not  recall  a  single  North- 
ern man  who  had  risked  his  popularity  at  home  in  defense  of  what 
were  termed  the  rights  of  the  South  who  had  not  in  the  supreme 
crisis  of  his  public  life  been  deserted  by  the  South.  Mr.  Webster, 
General  Cass,  William  L.  Marcy,  Mr.  Douglas,  and  President  Pierce 
were  among  the  most  conspicuous  of  those  who  had  been  thus  sacri- 
ficed. The  last  sixty  days  of  Mr.  Buchanan's  Presidency  furnished 
the  most  noted  of  all  the  victims  of  Southern  ingratitude.  Men  of 
lower  rank  but  similar  experience  were  to  be  found  in  the  years  pre- 
ceding the  war  in  nearly  every  Northern  State  —  men  who  had  ven- 
tured to  run  counter  to  the  principles  and  prejudices  of  their  own 
constituency  to  serve  those  who  always  abandoned  a  political  leader 
when  they  feared  he  might  have  lost  the  power  to  be  useful  to  them. 
The  pro-slavery  men  of  the  South,  in  following  this  course,  presented 
a  striking  contrast  to  the  anti-slavery  men  of  the  North  who,  under 
all  circumstances  and  against  all  temptation,  were  faithful  to  the 
leaders  who  proved  faithful  to  their  cause. 


CHAPTER    VI. 

MEETING  OF  THE  THIRTY-NINTH  CONGRESS.  —  RE-ELECTION  OF  SPEAKER  COLFAX.  —  His 
ADDRESS  ON  TAKING  THE  CHAIR.  —  THADDEUS  STEVENS  MOVES  FOR  A  COMMITTEE 
OF  RECONSTRUCTION.  —  RESISTED  BY  DEMOCRATS.  —  REBEL  CONTESTANTS  DENIED 
ADMISSION  TO  THE  FLOOR.  —  MUCH  FEELING  ON  THE  QUESTION.  —  PROCEEDINGS  OF 
THE  SENATE.  — PROPOSITIONS  OF  MR.  SUMNER.  —  ANNUAL  MESSAGE  OF  THE  PRESI- 
DENT. —  OUTLINE  OF  ITS  CONTENTS.  —  APPARENTLY  CONSERVATIVE  IN  TONE. — 
NOT  PERSONALLY  AGGRESSIVE.  —  LEADING  MEN  OF  THE  THIRTY-NINTH  CONGRESS. — 
DKATH  OF  BOTH  VERMONT  SENATORS.  —  NEW  SENATORS.  —  NEW  MEMBERS  OF  THE 
HOUSE.  —  SKETCHES  OF  PROMINENT  SENATORS  AND  REPRESENTATIVES.  —  PRESI- 
DENT JOHNSON'S  PATRONAGE.  —  UNPRECEDENTED  VOLUME  OF  IT  DUE  LARGELY  TO 
THE  WAR.  —  DANGER  OF  ITS  USE  AGAINST  REPUBLICANS.  —  APPREHENSIONS  OF 
REPUBLICANS.  —  RECONSTRUCTION  RESOLUTION  IN  THE  SENATE.  —  AMENDED  IN 
THAT  BODY.  —  CONCURRENCE  OF  HOUSE.  —  APPOINTMENT  OF  COMMITTEE.  —  STRONG 
CHARACTER  OF  ITS  MEMBERS.  —  HOUSE  RESOLUTIONS.  —  DEBATE  ON  RECONSTRUC- 
TION. —  LONGEST  DEBATE  IN  THE  HISTORY  OF  CONGRESS.  —  OPENED  BY  MR. 
STEVENS. —VERY  RADICAL  IN  ITS  TONE.  —  HE  SKETCHES  CHANGED  BASIS  OF 
REPRESENTATION.  — GIVES  OFFENSE  TO  THE  ADMINISTRATION.  —  MR.  HENRY  J. 
RAYMOND.  —  His  REPLY  TO  MR.  STEVENS.  —  His  STRONG  ATTACHMENT  TO  MR. 
SEWARD.  —  THEORY  OF  DEAD  STATES. — SPEECH  OF  MR.  SPALDING. — MR.  SHEL- 
LABARGER  REPLIES  TO  MR.  RAYMOND.  —  EXHAUSTIVE  SPEECH.  —  GAVE  HIM  A 
LEADING  PLACE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  — SEVERE  ATTACK  ON  THE  SOUTH.  —  RESOLUTIONS 
OF  MR.  VOORHEES  SUSTAINING  ADMINISTRATION.  —  SPEECH  IN  SUPPORT  OF  THEM. 

—  MR.  BINGHAM'S  REPLY.  —  HOUSE  REFUSES  TO  INDORSE  THE  ADMINISTRATION. — 
Two  REPUBLICANS  JOIN  DEMOCRATIC  VOTE.  —  DISAPPOINTMENT  OF  MR.  RAYMOND. 

—  THINKS  DEMOCRATIC  SUPPORT  A  MISFORTUNE.  —  CHARACTER  OF  MR.  RAYMOND. — 
His  GREAT  ABILITY.  —  His  LIFE  SHORTENED.  —  DIED  AT  FORTY-NINE. 

DURING  the  progress  of  events  in  the  South,  briefly  outlined  in 
the  preceding  chapter,  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress  came  together 
—  on  the  first  Monday  of  December,  1865.  The  Senate  and  House 
each  contained  a  large  majority  of  Republicans.  In  the  House  Mr. 
Colfax  was  re-elected  Speaker,  receiving  139  votes  to  36  cast  for  James 
Brooks  of  New  York.  The  address  of  the  Speaker  on  taking  the 
chair  is  usually  confined  to  thanks  for  his  election  and  courteous 
assurance  of  his  impartiality  and  good  intentions.  But  Mr.  Colfax, 
instinctively  quick,  as  he  always  was,  to  discern  the  current  of 
popular  thought,  incorporated  in  the  ceremonial  address  some  very 
decisive  political  declarations.  Referring  to  the  fact  that  the  Thirty- 
ill 


112  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

eighth  Congress  had  closed  nine  months  before,  with  "the  storm- 
cloud  of  war  still  lowering  over  us,"  and  rejoicing  that  "to-day, 
from  shore  to  shore  in  our  land  there  is  peace,"  he  proceeded  to 
indicate  the  line  of  policy  which  the  people  expected.  "The  duties 
of  Congress,"  said  he,  "  are  as  obvious  as  the  sun's  pathway  in  the 
heavens.  Its  first  and  highest  obligation  is  to  guarantee  to  every 
State  a  republican  form  of  government,  to  establish  the  rebellious 
States  anew  on  such  a  basis  of  enduring  justice  as  will  guarantee 
all  safeguards  to  the  people  and  protection  to  all  men  in  their 
inalienable  rights."  ..."  In  this  great  work,"  he  said,  "  the  world 
should  witness  the  most  inflexible  fidelity,  the  most  earnest  devotion 
to  the  principles  of  liberty  and  humanity,  the  truest  patriotism  and 
the  wisest  statesmanship." 

The  remarks  of  Mr.  Colfax  had  evident  reference  to  the  perverse 
action  of  Southern  rebels,  and  were  so  entirely  in  harmony  with 
the  feeling  of  the  House  that  at  different  stages  of  the  brief  address 
the  Republican  side  of  the  chamber  broke  forth  into  loud  applause. 
As  soon  as  the  election  of  Speaker  and  of  the  subordinate  officers  of 
the  House  was  completed,  Mr.  Thaddeus  Stevens,  recognized  as  the 
leader  of  the  majority,  offered  a  resolution  for  the  appointment  of  a 
"joint  committee  of  fifteen  members  —  nine  from  the  House  and  six 
from  the  Senate — who  shall  inquire  into  the  condition  of  the  States 
which  formed  the  so-called  Confederate  States  of  America,  and  report 
whether  "they,  or  any  of  them,  are  entitled  to  be  represented  in  either 
House  of  Congress,  with  leave  to  report  at  any  time  by  bill  or  other- 
wise." His  resolution  demanded  that  "  until  such  report  shall  have 
been  made  and  finally  acted  upon  by  Congress,  no  member  shall 
be  received  into  either  House  from  any  of  the  so-called  Confed- 
erate States,"  and  further  directed  that  "  all  papers  relating  to  the 
representation  of  the  said  States  shall  be  referred  to  the  said  com- 
mittee without  debate."  Mr.  Eldridge  of  Wisconsin  objected  to  the 
introduction  of  the  resolution,  and  was  met  by  Mr.  Stevens  with  a 
motion  to  suspend  the  rules,  which  was  carried  by  129  ayes  to  35 
noes.  Mr.  John  L.  Dawson  of  Pennsylvania  inquired  whether  it 
would  not  be  in  order  to  postpone  the  resolution  until  after  the 
receipt  of  the  President's  message  ;  but  the  House  was  in  no  disposi- 
tion to  testify  respect  for  Mr.  Johnson,  and  the  resolution  was 
adopted  by  as  large  a  vote  as  that  by  which  it  had  been  received. 

Mr.  Niblack  of  Indiana  offered  a  resolution  that  "pending  the 
question  as  to  the  admission  of  persons  claiming  to  have  been  elected 


REBEL  ASPIRANTS  TO  SEATS  IN  CONGRESS.  113 

representatives  to  the  present  Congress  from  the  States  lately  in 
rebellion,  such  persons  be  entitled  to  the  privileges  of  the  floor  of 
the  House."  This  was  a  privilege  always  accorded  to  contestants  for 
seats,  but  Mr.  Wilson  of  Iowa  now  objected ;  and,  on  motion  of  Mr. 
Stevens,  the  House  adjourned  .without  even  giving  the  courtesy  of  a 
vote  to  the  resolution.  No  action  of  a  more  decisive  character  could 
have  been  taken  to  indicate,  on  the  threshold  of  Congressional  pro- 
ceedings, the  hostility  of  the  Republican  party,  not  merely  to  the 
President's  plan  of  reconstruction,  but  to  the  men  who,  under  its 
operation  in  the  South,  had  been  chosen  to  represent  their  districts 
in  Congress.  Against  a  bad  principle  a  good  one  may  be  opposed 
and  the  contest  proceed  in  good  temper.  But  this  is  not  practi- 
cable when  personal  feeling  is  aroused.  The  presence  in  Washing- 
ton of  a  considerable  number  of  men  from  the  South,  who,  when 
Congress  adjourned  in  the  preceding  March,  were  serving  in  the 
Confederate  Army,  and  were  now  at  the  Capital  demanding  seats  in 
the  Senate  and  House,  produced  a  feeling  of  exasperation  amounting 
to  hatred.  The  President's  reconstruction  policy  would  have  been 
much  stronger  if  the  Southern  elections  to  Congress  had  been  post- 
poned, or  if  the  members  elect  had  remained  at  home  during  the 
discussion  concerning  their  eligibility.  The  presence  of  these  ob- 
noxious persons  inflamed  minds  not  commonly  given  to  excitement, 
and  drove  many  men  to  act  from  anger  who  were  usually  governed 
by  reason. 

In  the  Senate  the  proceedings  were  conducted  with  even  more 
disregard  of  the  President  than  had  been  manifested  in  the  House. 
An  entire  policy  was  outlined  by  Mr.  Sumner,  without  the  slightest 
reference  to  what  the  President  might  communicate  "  on  the  state  of 
the  Union,"  and  a  system  of  reconstruction  proposed  which  was  in 
absolute  hostility  to  the  one  that  Mr.  Johnson  had  devised.  Mr. 
Sumner  submitted  resolutions  defining  the  duty  of  Congress  in  respect 
to  guarantees  of  the  National  security  and  National  faith  in  the  rebel 
States.  While  the  conditions  were  not  put  forth  as  a  finality,  they 
were  significant,  if  not  conclusive,  of  the  demands  which  would  be 
made,  first  by  the  more  advanced  Republicans,  and  ultimately  by  the 
entire  party.  These  resolutions  declared  that,  in  order  to  provide 
proper  guarantees  for  security  in  the  future,  "  Congress  should  take 
care  that  no  one  of  the  rebellious  States  should  be  allowed  to  resume 
its  relations  to  the  Union  until  after  the  satisfactory  performance  of 
five  several  conditions,  which  must  be  submitted  to  a  popular  vote, 
VOL.  II.  8 


114  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

and  be  sanctioned  by  a  majority  of  the  people  in  each  of  those 
States  respectively."  These  conditions  were,  in  some  respects, 
marked  by  Mr.  Sumner's  lack  of  tact  and  practical  wisdom  as  a 
legislator.  He  required  stipulations,  the  fulfillment  of  which  could 
not  really  be  ascertained. 

Mr.  Sumner  demanded,  first,  "  the  complete  re-establishment  of 
loyalty,  as  shown  by  an  honest  recognition  of  the  unity  of  the  Re- 
public, and  the  duty  of  allegiance  to  it  at  all  times,  without  mental 
reservation  or  equivocation  of  any  kind."  How  Mr.  Sumner  could 
determine  that  "  the  recognition  of  the  unity  of  the  Republic  "  was 
honest,  how  he  could  know  whether  there  was  not,  after  all,  a  mental 
reservation  on  the  part  of  the  rebels  now  swearing  allegiance,  he 
did  not  attempt  to  inform  the  Senate.  The  next  or  second  condition 
was  somewhat  more  practical  in  fact,  but  might  have  been  expressed 
in  simpler  form.  He  demanded  "the  complete  suppression  of  all 
oligarchical  pretensions,  and  the  complete  enfranchisement  of  all  citi- 
zens, so  that  there  shall  be  no  denial  of  rights  on  account  of  race 
or  color."  His  third  condition  was  "the  rejection  of  the  rebel  debt, 
and  the  adoption,  in  just  proportions,  of  the  National  debt  and  the 
National  obligations  to  Union  soldiers,  with  solemn  pledges  never 
to  join  in  any  measure,  directly  or  indirectly,  for  their  repudiation,  or 
in  any  way  tending  to  impair  the  National  credit."  His  fourth  con- 
dition was  "the  organization  of  an  educational  system, for  the  equal 
benefit  of  all,  without  distinction  of  color  or  race."  His  fifth  had 
some  of  the  objectionable  features  of  his  first,  demanding  "  the  choice 
of  citizens  for  office,  whether  State  or  National,  of  constant  and 
undoubted  loyalty,  whose  conduct  and  conversation  shall  give  assur- 
ance of  peace  and  reconciliation."  The  rebel  States  were  not  to  be, 
in  Mr.  Sumner's  language,  "  precipitated  back  to  political  power  and 
independence,  but  must  wait  until  these  conditions  are,  in  all  respects, 
fulfilled."  In  addition,  he  desired  a  declaration  of  the  Senate  that 
"the  Thirteenth  Amendment,  abolishing  slavery,  has  become  and  is 
a  part  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  having  received  the 
approval  of  the  Legislatures  of  three-fourths  of  the  States  adhering 
to  the  Union."  He  declared  that  "  the  votes  of  the  States  in  re- 
bellion are  not  necessary,  in  any  way,  to  its  adoption,  but  they  must 
all  agree  to  it  through  their  Legislatures,  as  a  condition  precedent 
to  their  restoration  to  their  full  rights  as  members  of  the  Union." 
With  these  resolutions  Mr.  Sumner  submitted  another  long  series 
declaratory  of  the  duty  of  Congress  in  respect  to  loyal  citizens  in 


PRESIDENT  JOHNSON'S  FIRST  MESSAGE.  115 

the  rebel  States.  His  first  series  had  defined  what  the  lately  rebel- 
lious States  must  agree  to  by  popular  vote,  and  he  now  outlined 
quite  fully  what  would  be  the  duty  of  Congress  respecting  the 
admission  of  those  States  to  representation  in  the  Senate  and  the 
House.  The  sum  of  the  whole,  or  the  central  fact  of  the  whole 
series,  was  that  the  color  of  the  skin  must  not  exclude  a  loyal  man 
from  civil  rights. 

On  the  succeeding  day,  the  President,  having  received  notice  of 
the  organization  of  the  two  Houses,  communicated  his  annual  mes- 
sage. It  had  been  looked  for  with  great  interest  and  with  varying 
speculations  as  to  its  character.  It  was  expected,  and  as  the  event 
proved  with  good  reason,  that  it  would  affect  the  relation  of  parties 
in  the  Northern  States  ;  that  it  would  produce  ill-feeling  between  the 
President  and  the  Republicans,  who  had  chosen  him;  and  that  it 
would  lead,  with  equal  certainty,  to  a  tender  of  support  from  the 
Democrats  who  had  hitherto  opposed  him.  But  Mr.  Johnson  had 
evidently  resolved  to  exhibit  a  spirit  of  calmness  and  firmness  in 
his  official  communication,  and,  while  steadily  maintaining  his  own 
ground,  to  avoid  all  harsh  words  that  might  give  offense  to  those  who 
differed  from  him.  The  moderation  in  language  and  the  general 
conservatism  which  distinguished  the  message  were  perhaps  justly 
attributed  to  Mr.  Seward,  who  had  no  doubt  hoped,  by  kindly  words 
of  conciliation,  to  avert  the  threatened  break  in  the  ranks  of  the 
Republican  party.  Mr.  Seward  had  never  in  his  Congressional 
career  been  a  compromiser,  but  he  now  worked  most  earnestly  to 
bring  about  an  accommodation  between  the  Administration  and 
Congress.  His  argument  was  the  one  skillfully  employed  by  all 
who  seek  an  adjustment  between  those  who  ought  to  be  friends: 
Let  each  party  give  way  .a  little;  let  a  common  ground  of  action 
be  established ;  and,  above  all,  let  the  calamity  of  a  party  division 
be  averted. 

The  President  in  his  message  dwelt  at  some  length  in  a  tone  of 
moderation  upon  the  condition  of  affairs  in  the  South.  He  saw  before 
him  but  two  modes  of  dealing  with  the  insurrectionary  States,  —  one 
was  "  to  bring  them  back  into  practical  relations  with  the  Union ;  " 
the  other  was  to  "  hold  them  in  military  subjection."  .  .  .  "  Military 
government,"  said  the  President,  "  established  for  an  indefinite  period, 
would  offer  no  security  for  the  suppression  of  discontent,  would 
divide  the  people  into  the  vanquishers  and  the  vanquished,  and 
would  envenom  hatred  rather  than  restore  affection."  .  .  The 


116  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

President  set  forth  the  danger  of  permanent  arbitrary  rule.  "  Once 
established,  no  precise  limit  to  the  continuance  of  the  military 
governments  is  conceivable.  They  would  occasion  an  incalculable 
and  exhausting  expense.  Peaceful  emigration  would  be  prevented  ,- 
for  what  emigrant  abroad,  what  industrious  citizen  at  home,  would 
willingly  place  himself  under  military  rule  ?  "  —  "  Besides,"  asked 
the  President,  "  would  not  the  policy  of  military  rule  imply  that  the 
States  whose  inhabitants  may  have  taken  part  in  the  Rebellion  have, 
by  the  act  of  those  inhabitants,  ceased  to  exist?  whereas  the  true 
theory  is,  that  all  pretended  acts  of  secession  were  from  the  begin- 
ning null  and  void."  The  President  then  briefly  explained  how  he 
had  proceeded  in  the  appointment  of  provisional  governors,  the  call- 
ing of  conventions,  the  election  of  civil  governors  and  Legislatures, 
the  choosing  of  senators  and  representatives  in  Congress,  —  com- 
pactly sketching  the  progress  of  events  from  the  date  of  his  accession 
until  the  date  of  the  message. 

Discussing  his  proposed  policy  he  said  with  great  frankness,  "  I 
know  very  well  that  for  its  success  it  requires,  at  least,  the  acqui- 
escence of  the  States  which  it  concerns ;  that  it  implies  an  invitation 
to  those  States,  by  renewing  their  allegiance  to  the  United  States,  to 
resume  their  functions  as  States  of  the  Union ;  but  it  is  a  risk  that 
must  be  taken,  and  in  the  choice  of  difficulties,  it  is  the  smallest 
risk."  He  urged  very  earnestly  the  adoption  of  the  Thirteenth 
Amendment  in  order  that  the  negro  should  be  freed,  and  with  equal 
strength  maintained  that,  as  respected  the  qualifications  for  suffrage 
in  each  of  the  States,  "  the  General  Government  should  not  inter- 
fere, but  leave  that  matter  where  it  was  originally  left,  —  in  the 
Federal  Constitution."  But  the  most  partial  friend  of  the  President 
could  hardly  claim  that  he  frankly  communicated  the  proceedings  or 
the  spirit  of  the  Southern  conventions  and  Legislatures.  He  chose 
to  ignore  that  subject,  to  hide  it  by  fluent  and  graceful  phrase  from 
public  criticism,  and  thus  to  keep  from  the  official  knowledge  of 
Congress  the  most  important  facts  in  the  whole  domain  of  recon- 
struction. It  was  a  great  mistake  in  the  President  to  pass  over 
this  subject  in  silence.  Such  a  course  enforced  one  of  two  im- 
pressions, either  of  which  was  hurtful  to  him.  He  must,  according 
to  the  common  understanding  of  Congress,  have  thought  the  character 
of  Southern  legislation  so  offensive  that  he  could  find  no  excuse  for 
it  and  therefore  would  not  mention  it ;  or  he  must  have  regarded  it 
as  outside  the  line  of  his  observation  and  beyond  the  pale  of  his 


MEMBERS  OF  THIRTY-NINTH  CONGRESS.  117 

power  of  review.     Either  construction  was  bad,  but  the  second  and 
more  probable  one  was  especially  offensive. 


The  leading  men  of  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress  were  mainly  those 
of  the  Thirty-eighth,  though  there  had  been  a  few  important  changes. 
The  eminent  senator  from  Vermont,  Jacob  Collamer,  died  on  the 
9th  of  November  (1865) ;  and  Luke  P.  Poland^  afterwards  a  mem- 
ber of  the  House  of  Representatives,  appeared  as  his  successor.  Mr. 
Solomon  Foot,  who  announced  Judge  Collamer's  death,  survived  him 
but  a  few  months.  On  the  28th  of  March  Mr.  Sumner  announced 
his  death  to  the  Senate ;  and  eight  days  later  —  on  the  5th  of  April 
(1866)  —  George  F.  Edmunds  was  sworn  in  as  his  successor.  His 
first  speech  was  in  eulogy  of  his  predecessor.  Mr.  Edmunds  rose 
rapidly  to  prominence  in  the  Senate  and  after  the  habit  of  his  State 
has  been  maintained  for  a  long  period  in  his  position. 

Honorable  James  Guthrie  of  Kentucky,  who  had  been  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  under  President  Pierce,  now  entered  the  Senate  as 
the  successor  of  Lazarus  W.  Powell.  He  was  a  man  of  strong  parts, 
possessing  a  steady  industry  and  thrift  not  common  to  the  South. 
He  had  for  many  years  occupied  a  commanding  financial  position 
in  the  South-West.  Richard  Yates,  the  War  Governor  of  Illinois, 
displaced  William  A.  Richardson,  the  intimate  friend  of  Douglas. 
John  P.  Hale  gave  way  to  Aaron  H.  Cragin.  In  recognition  of  Mr. 
Hale's  ability  and  long  and  faithful  public  service,  Mr.  Lincoln  nomi- 
nated him  to  the  Spanish  Mission.  John  A.  J.  Creswell  came  from 
Maryland  as  the  successor  of  Anthony  Kennedy.  George  H.  Wil- 
liams, a  Republican,  came  from  Oregon  to  take  the  place  of  Benjamin 
F.  Harding,  a  Democrat.  John  P.  Stockton  of  New  Jersey,  a  Demo- 
crat, took  the  place  of  John  C.  Ten  Eyck,  a  Republican.  Samuel 
J.  Kirkwood  entered  as  the  successor  of  James  Harlan  to  fill  his 
unexpired  term,  and  performed  a  somewhat  unusual  service  in  pre- 
senting the  credentials  of  James  Harlan  as  his  successor  for  the  full 
term,  beginning  March  4,  1867.  This  was  the  first  appearance  of  Mr. 
Kirkwood  in  the  National  field,  though  he  had  long  been  well  known 
for  honorable  and  eminent  service  in  his  State. 

In  the  House  the  changes  were  more  significant  than  in  the 
Senate.  Gilman  Marston  entered  anew,  having  been  absent  serving 
with  great  credit  as  a  brigadier-general  in  the  war.  General  Banks 


118  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

resumed  the  seat  which  he  had  left  to  accept  the  governorship  of 
Massachusetts  in  1857.  His  checkered  and  remarkable  career,  both 
civil  and  military,  during  the  eight  intervening  years  had  greatly 
increased  his  reputation.  Henry  C.  Deming  of  Connecticut  entered 
fresh  from  the  field  of  war,  choosing  a  political  life  rather  than  a 
return  to  literary  labor.  New  York  was  greatly  strengthened  in  her 
delegation.  Roscoe  Conkling  resumed  the  seat  which  he  had  lost 
in  the  political  reverses  of  1862.  Among  the  new  members  were 
Henry  J.  Raymond,  the  able  founder  and  editor  of  The  New-York 
Times,  Robert  S.  Hale,  who  became  at  once  distinguished  in  the 


THIRTY-NINTH  CONGRESS. 

REPUBLICANS   IN  ROMAN;  DEMOCRATS  IN  ITALIC;  ADMINISTRATION  REPUBLICANS  IN  SMALL 

CAPITALS. 

SENATE. 

Lafayette  S.  Foster  of  Connecticut,  President  of  the  Senate. 

John  "W.  Forney  of  Pennsylvania,  Secretary. 

MAINE.  — William  Pitt  Fessenden,  Lot  M.  Morrill. 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  —  Daniel  Clark,1  Aaron  H.  Cragin. 

VERMONT.  —  Solomon  Foot,2  Luke  P.  Poland. 

MASSACHUSETTS.  —  Charles  Sumner,  Henry  Wilson. 

RHODE  ISLAND.  — Henry  B.  Anthony,  William  Sprague. 

CONNECTICUT.  —  JAMES  DIXON,  Lafayette  S.  Foster. 

NEW  YORK.  —  Ira  Harris,  Edwin  D.  Morgan. 

NEW  JERSEY.  —  William  Wriyht,3  John  P.  Stockton.* 

PENNSYLVANIA.  —  Charles  R.  Buckalew,  EDGAR  COWAN. 

DELAWARE.  —George  Reed  Riddle,  Willard  Saulsbury. 

MARYLAND.  —  John  A.  J.  Creswell,  Reverdy  Johnson. 

OHIO.  —  John  Sherman,  Benjamin  F.  Wade. 

KENTUCKY.  —  James  Guthrie,  Garrett  Davis. 

INDIANA.  —  Henry  S.  Lane,  Thomas  A.  Hendricks. 

ILLINOIS.  —  Lyman  Trumbull,  Richard  Yates. 

MISSOURI.  —  B.  Gratz  Brown,  John  B.  Henderson. 

MICHIGAN.  —  Zachariah  Chandler,  Jacob  M.  Howard. 

IOWA.  —  James  \V.  Grimes,  Samuel  J.  Kirkwood. 

WISCONSIN.  —  JAMES  R.  DOOLITTLE,  Timothy  O.  Howe. 

CALIFORNIA.  —  John  Conness,  James  A.  McDouyal. 

MINNESOTA.  —  DANIEL  S.  NORTON,  Alexander  Ramsey. 

OREGON.  —James  W.  Nesmith,  George  H.  Williams. 

KANSAS.  —  Samuel  C.  Pomeroy,  JAMES  H.  LANE.S 

WEST  VIRGINIA.  —  Peter  C.  Van  Winkle,  Waitman  T.  Willey. 

NEVADA.  —  James  W.  Nye,  William  M.  Stewart. 

TENNESSEE.— David  T.  Patterson,  Joseph  S.  Fowler.    From  July  24,  1866. 


*  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  George  G.  Fogg.  »  Died.    Succeeded  by  Frederick  T.  Frelinghuysen. 

2  Died.    Succeeded  by  George  F.  Edmunds.  *  Unseated.    Succeeded  by  Alexander  G.  Cattell. 

6  Died.    Succeeded  by  Edmund  G.  Ross. 


MEMBERS  OF  THIRTY-NINTH  CONGRESS.  119 

arena  of  debate,  and  Hamilton  Ward,  afterwards  Attorney-General 
of  his  State.  These  additions  gave  to  the  delegation  a  prestige 
which  its  numbers  did  not  always  secure.  John  H.  Ketcham,  who 
had  attained  the  rank  of  brigadier-general  by  successful  service  in  the 
field,  took  his  seat  in  this  Congress,  destined  to  hold  it  for  a  long 
period,  destined  also  to  exert  large  political  influence  without  ever 
once  addressing  the  House  of  Representatives  or  an  assembly  of  the 
people.  Reuben  E.  Fenton,  after  long  and  able  service  in  the  House, 
was  now  transferred  to  the  gubernatorial  chair  of  his  State. 

Three  new  men  of  note  entered  from  Pennsylvania  —  John  M. 


HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

Schuyler  Colfax  of  Indiana,  Speaker. 

Edward  McPherson  of  Pennsylvania,  Clerk. 

MAINE.  —  John  Lynch,  Sidney  Perham,  James  G.  Elaine,  John  H.  Rice,  Frederick  A.  Pike. 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  —  Gilman  Marston,  Edward  H.  Rollins,  James  \V.  Patterson. 

VERMONT.  —  Frederick  E.  Woodbridge,  Justin  S.  Morrill,  Portus  Baxter. 

MASSACHUSETTS.  —  Thomas  D.  Eliot,  Oakes  Ames,  Alexander  H.  Rice,  Samuel  Hooper, 
John  B.  Alley,  Nathaniel  P.  Banks,  George  S  Boutwell,  John  D.  Baldwin,  Wil- 
liam B.  Washburn,  Henry  L.  Dawes. 

RHODE  ISLAND. — Thomas  A.  Jenckes,  Nathan  F.  Dixon. 

CONNECTICUT.  — Henry  C.  Deming,  Samuel  L.  Warner,  Augustus  Brandegee,  John  H. 
Hubbard. 

NEW  YORK.  —  Stephen  Taber,  Tennis  G.  Bergen,  James  Humphrey,1  More/an  Jones,  Nelson 
Taylor,  HENRY  J.  RAYMOND,  John  W.  Chanler,  James  Brooks,2  William  A.  Darling, 
William  Radford,  Charles  H.  Winfield,  John  H.  Ketcham,  Edwin  N.  Hubbell,  Charles 
Goodyear,  John  A.  Griswold,  ROBERT  S.  HALE,  Calvin  T.  Hulburd,  James  M.  Mar- 
vin, Demas  Hubbard,  jun.,  Addison  H.  Laflin,  Roscoe  Conkling,  Sidney  T.  Holmes, 
Thomas  T.  Davis,  Theodore  M  Pomeroy,  Daniel  Morris,  Giles  W.  Hotchkiss, 
Hamilton  Ward,  Roswell  Hart,  Burt  Van  Horn,  James  M.  Humphrey,  Henry  Van 
Aernam. 

NEW  JERSEY.  —  John  F.  Starr,  William  A.  Newell,  Charles  Sitgreaves,  Andrew  J.  Rogers, 
Edwin  R.  V.  Wright. 

PENNSYLVANIA.  —  Samuel  J.  Randall,  Charles  O'Neill,  Leonard  Myers,  William  D.  Kelley, 
M  Russell  Thayer,  Benjamin  M.  Boyer,  John  M.  Broomall,  Sydenham  E.  Ancona, 
Thaddeus  Stevens,  Myers  Strouse,  Philip  Johnson,3  Charles  Denison,  Ulysses  Mercur, 
George  F.  Miller,  Adam  J.  Glossbrenner,  Alexander  H.  Coffroth,*  Abraham  A.  Barker, 
Stephen  F.  Wilson,  Glenni  W.  Scofield,  Charles  V.  Culver,  John  L.  Dawson,  James 
K.  Moorhead,  Thomas  Williams,  George  V.  Lawrence. 

DELAWARE.  —  John  A.  Nicholson. 

MARYLAND.  —  Hiram  McCullouyh,  John  L.  Thomas,  jun.,  CHARLES  E.  PHELPS,  Francis 
Thomas,  Benjamin  G.  Harris. 

OHIO.  —  Benjamin  Eggleston,  Rutherford  B.  Hayes,  Robert  C.  Schenck,  William  Law- 
rence, Francis  C.  Le  Blond,  Reader  W.  Clarke,  Samuel  Shellabarger,  JAMES  R. 
HUBBELL,  Ralph  P.  Buckland,  James  M.  Ashley,  Hezekiah  S.  Bundy,  William  E. 
Finck,  Columbus  Delano,  Martin  Welker,  Tobias  A.  Plants,  John  A.  Bingham, 
Ephraim  R.  Eckley,  Rufus  P.  Spalding,  James  A.  Garfield. 

1  Died.    Succeeded  by  John  W.  Hunter.  s  Dje<I.    Succeeded  by  Daniel  M.  Van  Auken. 

1  Unseated.    Succeeded  by  William  E.  Dodge.  *  Unseated.    Succeeded  by  William  H.  Koontz. 


120  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Broomall,  an  independent  thinker  and  keen  debater,  inflexible  in 
principle,  untiring  in  effort;  Ulysses  Mercur,  whose  learning  as  a 
lawyer  and  whose  worth  as  a  man  have  since  received  their  reward 
in  a  promotion  to  the  Supreme  Bench  of  his  State ;  George  V.  Law- 
rence, one  of  the  best  known  and  most  sagacious  political  leaders  in 
Western  Pennsylvania,  inheriting  his  capacity  from  his  honored  father, 
Joseph  Lawrence,  who  died  during  his  membership  of  the  Twenty- 
seventh  Congress.  John  L.  Thomas,  junior,  entered  as  the  representa- 
tive of  the  city  of  Baltimore ;  and  the  venerable  Francis  Thomas 
returned  from  his  hermitage  and  his  weird  life  in  the  Alleghanies. 

KENTUCKY.  —  Lawrence  S.  Trimble,  Bw^well  C.  Ritter,  Henry  Grider,1  Aaron  Harding,  Lov- 
ELL  H.  ROUSSEAU,  GREEN  CLAY  SMITH,2  George  S.  Shanklin,  William  H.  Randall, 
Samuel  McKee. 

TENNESSEE.  —  Nathaniel  G.  Taylor,  Horace  Maynard,  William  B.  Stokes,  Edmund  Cooper, 
William  B.  Campbell,  Samuel  M.  Arnell,  Isaac  R.  Hawkins,  John  W.  Leftwich. 
From  July  24, 1866. 

INDIANA.  —  William  E.  Niblack,  Michael  C.  Kerr,  Ralph  Hill,  John  H.  Farquhar,  George 
W.  Julian,  Ebenezer  Dumont,  Daniel  W.  Yoorhees,3  Godlove  S.  Orth,  Schuyler  Col- 
fax,  Joseph  H.  Defrees,  THOMAS  N.  STILLWELL. 

ILLINOIS.  —  John  Wentworth,  John  F.  Farnsworth,  Elihu  B.  "Washhurne,  Abner  C. 
Harding,  Ebon  C.  Ingersoll,  Burton  C.  Cook,  Henry  P.  H.  Bromwell,  Shelby  M. 
Cullom,  Lewis  W.  Ross,  Anthony  Thornton,  Samuel  S.  Marshall,  Jehu  Baker,  An- 
drew J.  Kuykendall,  Samuel  W.  Moulton. 

MISSOURI.  —  John  Hogan,  Henry  T.  Blow,  THOMAS  E.  NOELL,  John  R.  Kelso,  Joseph  W. 
McClurg,  Robert  T.  Van  Horn,  Benjamin  F.  Loan,  John  F.  Benjamin,  George  W. 
Anderson. 

MICHIGAN.  —  Fernando  C.  Beaman,  Charles  Upson,  John  W.  Longyear,  Thomas  W. 
Ferry,  Roland  E.  Trowbridge,  John  F.  Driggs. 

IOWA.  —  James  F.  Wilson,  Hiram  Price,  William  B.  Allison,  Joseph  B.  Grinnell,  John 
A.  Kasson,  Asahel  W.  Hubbard. 

WISCONSIN.  —  Halbert  E.  Paine,  Ithamar  C.  Sloan,  Amasa  Cobb,  Charles  A.  Eldridget 
Philetus  Sawyer,  Walter  D.  Mclndoe. 

CALIFORNIA.  —  Donald  C.  McRuer,  William  Higby,  John  Bidwell. 

MINNESOTA.  —  William  Windom,  Ignatius  Donnelly. 

OREGON.  —  James  H.  D.  Henderson. 

KANSAS.  —  Sidney  Clarke. 

WEST  VIRGINIA.  —  Chester  D.  Hubbard,  George  R.  Latham,  Kellian  V.  Whaley. 

NEVADA.  —  Delos  R.  Ashley. 

NEBRASKA.  —  Thomas  M.  Marquette.    From  Feb.  9,  1867. 

TERRITORIAL  DELEGATES. 

NEW  MEXICO.  —  J.  Francisco  Chaves. 

UTAH.  —  William  H.  Hooper. 

WASHINGTON.  — Arthur  A.  Denny. 

ARIZONA.  —  John  N.  Goodwin. 

NEBRASKA.  —  Phineas  W.  Hitchcock. 

COLORADO.  —  Allen  A.  Bradford. 

DAKOTA.  —  Walter  A.  Burleigh.  • 


Died.    Succeeded  by  Elijah  Hise.  *  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  Andrew  H.  Ward. 

s  Unseated.    Succeeded  by  Henry  D.  Washburn. 


MEMBERS  OF  THIRTY-NINTH  CONGRESS.  121 

Ohio  grew  even  stronger  than  before,  and  her  delegation  was  again 
recognized  as  the  leading  one  of  the  House.  Samuel  Shellabarger, 
John  A.  Bingham  and  Columbus  Delano  re-entered  with  reputation 
already  established  by  previous  service  in  Congress.  William  Law- 
rence, a  conscientious  legislator  and  careful  lawyer,  entered  from  the 
Bellefontaine  District.  Martin  Welker,  since  promoted  to  the  bench 
in  his  State,  came  from  the  Wooster  District.  One  of  the  Cincin- 
nati districts  was  represented  by  Benjamin  Eggleston,  a  man  of  great 
force  and  energy ;  and  the  other,  by  a  modest  man,  without  experience 
in  legislation,  but  who  had  been  a  good  and  true  soldier  in  the  war 

IDAHO.  —  E.  D.  Holbrook. 
MONTANA.  —  Samuel  McLean. 

SENATORS  CHOSEN  FROM  THE  LATE  INSURRECTIONARY  STATES. 

ALABAMA. —Lewis  E.  Parsons,  George  S.  Houston. 

ARKANSAS.  —  ft lisha  Baxter,  William  D.  Snow. 

FLORIDA.  —  William  Marvin,  Wilkerson  Call. 

GEORGIA.  —  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  Herschel  V.  Johnson. 

LOUISIANA.  —  Randall  Hunt,  Henry  Boyce.    (R.  King  Cutler  and  Michael  Halm  also 

claim  under  a  former  election  in  October,  1864.) 
MISSISSIPPI.  — William  L.  Sharkey,  James  L.  Alcorn. 
NORTH  CAROLINA.  —  William  A.  Graham,  John  Pool. 
SOUTH  CAROLINA.  —  Benjamin  F.  Perry,  John  L.  Manning.1 
TENNESSEE.  —  David  T.  Patterson,  Joseph  S.  Fowler. 
TEXAS.  — David  G.  Burnett,  O.  M.  Roberts. 
VIRGINIA.  —  John  C.  Underwood,  Joseph  Segar. 

REPRESENTATIVES  CHOSEN  FROM   THE  LATE  INSURRECTIONARY  STATES. 

ALABAMA.  —  C.  C.  Langdon,  George  C.  Freeman,2  General  Cullen  A.  Battle,  Joseph  W. 

Taylor,  B.  T.  Pope,  Thomas  J.  Foster. 

ARKANSAS.  —  William  Byers,  George  H.  Kyle,  James  M.  Johnson. 
FLORIDA. —  F.  McLeod. 
GEORGIA.  —  Solomon  Cohen,  General  Philip  Cook,  Hugh  Buchanan,  E.  G.  Cabaniss, 

J.  D.  Matthews,  J.  H.  Christy,  General  W.  T.  Wofford.8 
LOUISIANA.  —  Louis  St.  Martin,  Jacob  Barker,  Robert  C.  Wickliffe,  John  E.  King,  John 

S.  Ray.    (Henry  C.  Warmoth  claims  seat  as  delegate  under  universal  suffrage 

election.) 

MISSISSIPPI.  — Colonel  Arthur  E.  Reynolds,  Colonel  Richard  A.  Pinson,  James  T.  Harri- 
son, A.  M.  West,  E.  G.  Peyton. 
NORTH  CAROLINA.  —  Jesse  R.  Stubbs,  Charles  C.  Clark,  Thomas  C.  Fuller,  Colonel  Josiah 

Turner,  jun.,  Lewis  Hanes,  S.  H.  Walkup,  Alexander  H.  Jones. 
SOUTH  CAROLINA.  —  Colonel  John  D.    Kennedy,  William    Aiken,  General    Samuel 

McGowan,  James  Farrow. 
TENNESSEE.  — Nathaniel  G.  Taylor,  Horace  Maynard,  William   B.   Stokes,  Edmund 

Cooper,  William  B.  Campbell,  Samuel  M.  Arnell,  Isaac  R.  Hawkins,  John  W.  Left- 

wich. 

TEXAS.  —  George  W.  Chilton,  Benjamin  H.  Epperson,  A.  M.  Branch,  C.  Herbert. 
VIRGINIA.  —  W.  H.  B.  Custis,  Lucius  H.  Chandler,  B.  Johnson  Barbour,  Robert  Ridgeway, 

Beverly  A.  Davis,  Alexander  H.  H.  Stuart,  Robert  Y.  Conrad,  Daniel  H.  Hoge. 

Resigned.    Succeeded  by  James  B.  Campbell.  2  Died.    Succeeded  by  J.  McCaleb  Wiley, 

a  Died.    Succeeded  by  James  P.  Hambleton. 


122  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

for  the  Union  and  was  highly  esteemed  by  his  neighbors.  He  did 
not  take  an  active  part  in  Congress,  but  was  destined  to  a  promi- 
nence of  which  he  little  dreamed  —  Rutherford  B.  Hayes. 

The  Indiana  delegation  was  strengthened  on  the  Democratic  side 
by  the  return  of  William  E.  Niblack,  who  had  made  a  good  record  in 
the  Thirty-seventh  Congress ;  and  by  the  entrance  of  Michael  C. 
Kerr,  who  served  for  a  long  period  and  ultimately  became  Speaker  of 
the  House.  Messrs.  Julian,  Orth,  and  Dumont  were  again  elected. 
The  last-named  had  made  a  reputation  in  the  preceding  Congress 
as  a  keen  and  able  man.  The  Illinois  delegation,  which  had  con- 
tained a  large  majority  of  Democrats  in  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress, 
now  returned  strongly  Republican,  —  Mr.  Lincoln's  victory  of  1864 
having,  with  three  exceptions,  carried  with  it  every  Congressional 
district.  Four  men  of  marked  characteristics  were  among  the  new 
members  of  the  delegation,  one  of  whom  was  already  widely  known : 
the  three  others  were  destined  to  become  so  in  different  degrees  — 
John  Wentworth,  Shelby  M.  Cullom,  Burton  C.  Cook,  and  Jehu 
Baker.  Wentworth  had  been  in  the  House  as  a  Democrat  prior  to 
the  war,  having  represented  the  Chicago  District  continuously  from 
March  4,  1843  to  March  4,  1851 ;  and  again  from  March  4,  1853  to 
March  4,  1855.  He  was  endowed  by  nature  with  a  mind  as  strong 
as  his  body,  and  that  was  of  Titanic  proportions.  He  was  an  ardent 
partisan  in  behalf  of  any  cause  he  espoused  •,  was  willful,  aggressive, 
and  dominating.  He  was,  at  the  same  time,  genial  and  kindly  in 
many  relations  of  life,  not  without  gifts  of  both  wit  and  humor, 
and  courageous  to  the  point  of  absolute  fearlessness.  He  had  been 
well  educated  at  Dartmouth  College  in  his  native  State,  and  long 
practice  had  made  him  a  dangerous  antagonist  in  debate.  He  had 
been  an  intense  Democrat,  but  he  refused  to  join  Douglas  in  the 
repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  subsequently  united  with 
the  Republicans.  —  Shelby  M.  Cullom,  with  good  natural  parts  and 
sound  education,  amiable,  pleasing,  and  endowed  with  the  gracious 
quality  which  attracts  and  holds  friends,  won  his  way  promptly  in 
the  House  and  gave  early  promise  of  the  success  which  afterwards 
elevated  him  to  the  governorship  of  Illinois,  and  thence  transferred 
him  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  —  Burton  C.  Cook  was  recog- 
nized as  an  able  lawyer  from  the  beginning  of  his  service.  He  con- 
stantly grew  in  influence  and  strength  during  the  eight  years  of 
his  continuous  membership,  and  at  its  close  returned  to  the  bar  with 
an  enviable  reputation  and  with  the  assurance  of  that  eminent  sue- 


MEMBERS  OF  THIRTY-NINTH  CONGRESS.  123 

cess  which  has  since  attended  his  professional  career.  —  Jehu  Baker 
was  a  man  of  peculiarities,  not  to  say  oddities,  of  bearing ;  but  these 
did  not  conceal  his  worth  and  ability,  nor  retard  the  growing  reputa- 
tion which  has  since  retained  him  in  a  diplomatic  position. 

Missouri,  then  under  the  control  of  the  Republican  party,  included 
in  her  delegation  Robert  T.  Van  Horn,  a  Pennsylvanian  by  birth, 
who  had  borne  a  conspicuous  part  in  the  contest  with  the  disloyal 
elements  of  the  State  of  his  adoption;  and  John  Hogan,  a  genial 
Irish  Democrat  from  the  St.  Louis  District.  The  Michigan  delegation 
was  the  same  as  in  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress,  with  the  exception  of 
Thomas  W.  Ferry,  who  now  entered  for  the  first  time,  and  Roland 
E.  Trowbridge,  who  had  served  in  the  Thirty-seventh  Congress.  The 
Iowa  delegation  was  the  same  as  in  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress,  —  a 
very  able  body  of  men  with  growing  influence  in  the  House.  The 
Wisconsin  delegation  was  also  in  large  part  the  same.  But  the  new 
members  were  men  of  note.  Among  them  were  Halbert  E.  Paine 
and  Philetus  Sawyer.  General  Paine  had  served  with  distinction  in 
the  war  and  had  lost  a  leg  in  battle.  He  was  a  lawyer  in  full 
practice,  a  man  of  the  highest  integrity,  without  fear  and  without 
reproach.  Born  in  the  Western  Reserve,  he  was  radical  in  his  views 
touching  the  slavery  question  and  progressive  in  all  matters  of  gov- 
ernmental reform.  —  Philetus  Sawyer  was  a  native  of  Vermont,  who, 
when  a  young  man,  had  emigrated  to  Wisconsin.  Without  early 
advantages,  either  of  education  or  fortune,  he  was  in  the  best  sense 
of  the  phrase  a  self-made  man.  He  engaged  in  the  business  of  lum- 
bering and  by  sagacity  had  acquired  wealth.  It  is  easy  to  supply 
superlatives  in  eulogy  of  popular  favorites ;  but  Mr.  Sawyer,  in 
modest  phrase,  deserves  to  be  ranked  among  the  best  of  men,  — 
honest,  industrious,  generous,  true  to  every  tie  and  to  every  obliga- 
tion of  life.  He  remained  for  ten  years  in  the  House,  with  con- 
stantly increasing  influence,  and  was  afterwards  promoted  to  the 
Senate.  California  sent  an  excellent  delegation  —  McRuer,  Higby, 
and  Bidwell ;  and  West  Virginia  contributed  a  valuable  member  in 
the  person  of  Chester  D.  Hubbard. 

The  members  of  the  House  had  been  elected  in  1864  —  borne  to 
their  seats  by  the  force  of  the  same  popular  expression  that  placed 
Mr.  Lincoln  in  the  Presidential  chair  for  a  second  term.  It  is 
scarcely  conceivable  that  had  Mr.  Lincoln  lived  any  serious  differ- 
ences could  have  arisen  between  himself  and  Congress  respecting 
the  policy  of  reconstruction.  The  elections  of  1865,  held  amid  the 


124  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

shouts  of  triumph  over  a  restored  Union,  went  by  default  in  favor 
of  the  Republicans,  who  were  justly  credited  with  the  National 
victory  so  far  as  any  one  political  party  was  entitled  to  such  honor. 
The  people  had  therefore  given  no  expression,  in  any  official  or 
registered  form,  touching  the  policy  outlined  by  Mr.  Johnson.  He 
was  the  duly-elected  Vice-President.  He  had  come  to  the  chief 
magistracy  in  presumed  sympathy  and  close  affiliation  with  the  Re- 
publicans whose  suffrages  he  had  received.  All  beyond  these  facts 
was  surmise  or  inference.  No  one  knew  any  thing  with  precision 
respecting  the  new  President's  intentions. 

He  undoubtedly  had  control  of  an  enormous  public  patronage. 
The  Peace  establishment  of  the  Army,  it  was  thought  at  that  time, 
would  not  be  less  than  seventy-five  regiments,  and  this,  with  the 
necessary  staff,  would  give  to  him  the  appointment  of  nearly  two 
thousand  officers  without  disturbing  the  commissions  of  those  already 
in  the  regular  service.  A  like  increase  was  expected  in  the  naval 
establishment.  The  internal-revenue  system,  devised  for  the  support 
.of  the  war,  was  all-pervasive  in  its  character,  and  required  for  its 
administration  a  great  number  of  officers  and  agents,  all  removable 
and  appointable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  Executive.  The  customs' 
service  was  correspondingly  large,  having  grown  immensely  during 
the  war.  In  proportion  to  the  population  of  the  country  there  never 
had  been,  there  has  never  since  been,  and  perhaps  there  will  never 
again  be,  so  vast  an  official  patronage  placed  at  the  absolute  disposal 
of  the  President. 

Public  opinion,  which  has  in  later  years  tended  to  restrain  the 
Executive  Department  from  the  personal  use  of  the  patronage  of  the 
Government,  did  not  at  that  time  exert  a  perceptible  influence  in 
this  direction.  The  maxim  originating  with  William  L.  Marcy,  but 
frequently  attributed  to  President  Jackson,  that  "  to  -the  victor  be- 
long the  spoils,"  was  then  held  in  full  honor;  and  though  it  was 
deprecated  by  many  and  openly  opposed  in  Congress  by  a  few,  it 
was  acquiesced  in  by  the  vast  majority  and  was  the  rule  and  practice 
of  the  National  Administration.  The  patronage  placed  a  formidable 
weapon  in  the  hands  of  the  President  which  could  be  so  used  as  to 
annoy  or  help  every  Republican  representative  in  Congress,  —  so 
used,  indeed,  as  to  prevent  the  election  of  many  who  were  peculiarly 
offensive  to  Mr.  Johnson.  He  had  been  reared  in  the  Democratic 
school  of  proscription,  and  had  measured  the  force  and  indulged  in 
the  use  of  patronage  throughout  all  his  political  life  in  Tennessee. 


SOLICITUDE  OF  REPUBLICANS.  125 

Though  a  man  of  the  strictest  personal  integrity,  he  had  apparently 
no  scruples  on  this  subject,  but  believed  that  the  patronage  of  the 
Government  might  be  honestly  used  to  build  up  his  own  political 
power.  When  he  entered  political  life  he  imbibed  this  doctrine  from 
the  teachings  of  President  Jackson  ;  he  afterwards  received  its  advan- 
tage under  Van  Buren  ;  he  aided  in  its  enforcement  under  Polk  ;  and 
when  a  senator,  during  the  Administration  of  Buchanan,  he  witnessed 
its  prodigious  power  in  the  overthrow  of  Douglas  as  a  Presidential 
candidate,  though  a  large  majority  of  the  rank  and  file  of  his  party 
desired  his  nomination.  While  the  Democratic  masses  were,  in  fact, 
clamorous  for  Douglas,  he  was  defeated  by  combinations  brought 
about  through  the  active  instrumentality  of  United-States  district 
attorneys,  collectors,  marshals,  and  their  deputies — all  acting,  as 
they  had  good  reason  to  know,  in  harmony  with  the  wishes  of  the 
Administration  from  whose  favor  they  had  received  their  places. 


The  Republicans  of  the  loyal  States,  whose  convictions  and  whose 
prejudices  were  strongly  developed  by  the  controversy  between  the 
President  and  Congress,  had  grave  apprehensions  as  to  the  ultimate 
issue.  At  various  times  during  the  fifteen  years  preceding  the  war, 
they  had  seen  men  of  strong  anti-slavery  professions,  with  strong 
anti-slavery  constituencies,  "palter  in  a  double  sense"  when  intrusted 
with  the  duties  of  a  representative  in  Congress,  and  fall  from  the 
faith,  influenced  by  what  were  termed  the  blandishments  of  power, 
or  as  was  sometimes  more  plainly  said,  corrupted  by  the  gifts  of 
patronage.  They  had  seen  this  result  brought  about  by  an  Admin- 
istration which  the  tempted  and  yielding  representatives  had  been 
specially  chosen  to  oppose.  They  had  now  double  ground  to  fear 
that  many  more  would  prove  treacherous  to  their  professions  of 
principle,  since  they  could  take  refuge  under  the  protection  of  an 
Administration  chosen  by  their  own  party  and  still  nominally  pro- 
fessing to  be  Republican.  The  magnitude  of  the  patronage  at  the 
President's  disposal  intensified  the  popular  alarm ;  and  the  prompt- 
ness with  which  a  large  proportion  of  those  holding  office  echoed  the 
President's  sentiments  and  defended  his  policy,  was  taken  as  a  signal 
that  acquiescence  therein  would  be  the  one  condition  upon  which 
the  honors  and  emoluments  of  public  place  could  be  enjoyed. 

The  great  mass  of  loyal  Republicans  had  descried  a  peculiar 


126  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

danger  in  the  gentle,  persuasive,  insinuating  words  with  which  the 
President,  in  his  annual  message,  sought  to  commend  his  policy. 
Phrasing  of  a  specious  type  can  deceive  an  individual  far  more  easily 
than  it  can  deceive  a  multitude  of  men.  The  quick  comprehension 
of  the  people  so  far  transcends  that  of  a  single  person  as  to  amount 
almost  to  the  possession  of  a  sixth  sense.  While  the  single  person 
might  be  misled  by  fallacious  statements  and  suppressions  of  truth 
by  the  President,  the  people  discerned  with  keen  precision  the  abso- 
lute facts  of  the  case.  They  saw  that  the  policy  of  the  President 
was  at  war  with  the  creed  and  the  spirit  of  the  Republican  party,  and 
that,  if  carried  into  effect,  the  legitimate  fruits  of  the  bloody  struggle 
which  had  afflicted  the  Nation  would  be  lost  to  posterity,  the  laws  of 
humanity  would  be  violated,  and  a  fresh  rebellion  against  National 
authority  would  be  invited.  The  ancient  maxim,  that  the  voice  of 
the  people  is  the  voice  of  God,  is  illogical  in  its  direct  statement,  and 
like  all  adages  it  covers  both  a  truth  and  an  untruth.  Its  truth  was 
now  signally  vindicated,  when,  against  the  authority  of  those  in  high 
places,  against  the  instruction  of  those  who  had  always  before  been 
trusted,  the  mass  of  the  Republican  party  stood  with  heroic  firmness 
for  what  they  believed  to  be  right.  They  stood  against  the  seduc- 
tions of  patronage  in  the  hands  of  the  President  whom  they  had 
elected,  and  against  the  eloquent  pleadings  of  the  Secretary  of  State, 
who  for  ten  years  before  the  war  had  been  their  sagacious  guide, 
their  profound  philosopher,  their  trusted  friend. 

It  was  this  common  instinct  and  prompt  expression  by  the  people 
which  rescued  Congress  from  the  danger  of  injurious  complication. 
The  first  test  in  the  Senate,  as  to  the  solidity  of  the  Republican 
party,  was  made  on  the  12th  of  December,  when  the  resolution  to 
form  a  select  committee  of  reconstruction,  passed  by  the  House  on 
the  first  day  of  the  session,  came  up  for  consideration.  It  was 
amended  on  motion  of  Mr.  Anthony,  by  striking  out  that  portion  of 
it  which  provided  that  no  member  should  be  received  into  either 
House  from  the  so-called  Confederate  States  until  the, report  of  the 
committee  was  received  and  acted  upon.  This  was  held  to  impinge 
on  the  power  of  each  House  to  be  the  judge  of  its  own  elections,  and 
was  expunged  by  general  consent.  On  the  propriety  of  the  resolu- 
tion thus  amended  a  brief  debate  occurred,  which  to  a  certain 
extent  enabled  senators  to  define  their  position ;  and  before  it  was 
concluded  it  was  made  evident  that  Mr.  Cowan  of  Pennsylvania, 
Mr.  Dixon  of  Connecticut,  and  Mr.  Doolittle  of  Wisconsin,  would 


APPOINTMENT  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  COMMITTEE.         127 

separate  from  the  mass  of  their  Republican  associates,  would  support 
the  reconstruction  policy  of  the  President,  and  would  ultimately  be- 
come merged  in  the  Democratic  party.  Mr.  Norton  of  Minnesota 
not  long  afterwards  became  one  of  the  supporters  of  the  President, 
making  a  net  loss  of  four  to  the  Republican  side  of  the  chamber. 
The  Senate,  at  that  time,  contained  fifty  members,  twenty-five  States 
being  represented.  Of  this  number  the  Democrats  had  but  eleven. 
The  loss  of  four  still  left  the  Republicans  in  possession  of  more  than 
two-thirds  of.  the  seats  in  the  Senate.  The  House  had  even  a  larger 
proportion  of  Republican  members.  These  facts  were  destined  to 
exert  a  wide  and  then  unforeseen  influence  upon  the  legislation  of 
Congress  and  upon  the  political  affairs  of  the  country. 

The  House  concurred  promptly  in  the  amendment  which  the  Sen- 
ate had  made  to  the  resolution  providing  for  a  joint  committee  on  the 
subject  of  Reconstruction.  It  is  not  often  that  such  solicitude  is  felt 
in  Congress  touching  the  membership  of  a  committee  as  was  now 
developed  in  both  branches.  It  was  foreseen  that  in  an  especial  degree 
the  fortunes  of  the  Republican  party  would  be  in  the  keeping  of  the 
fifteen  men  who  might  be  chosen.  The  contest,  predestined  and 
already  manifest,  between  the  President  and  Congress  might,  unless 
conducted  with  great  wisdom,  so  seriously  divide  the  party  as  to 
compass  its  ruin.  Hence  the  imperious  necessity  that  no  rash  or  ill- 
considered  step  should  be  taken.  Both  in  Congress  and  among  the 
people  the  conviction  was  general  that  the  party  was  entitled  to  the 
services  of  its  best  men.  There  was  no  struggle  among  members  for 
positions  on  the  committee ;  and  when  the  names  were  announced 
they  gave  universal  satisfaction  to  the  Republicans.  There  was  some 
complaint  by  the  Democrats  that  they  had  only  one  representative 
upon  the  committee  in  the  Senate  and  two  in  the  House,  but  the 
relative  strength  of  parties  in  both  branches  scarcely  justified  a 
larger  representation  of  the  minority. 

Even  before  the  announcement  of  the  names  a  great  number  of 
resolutions  were  offered  in  the  House,  intended  to  call  forth  expres- 

NOTE.  —  The  members  of  the  Joint  Committee  on  Reconstruction  were  as  fol- 
lows :  — 

On  the  part  of  the  Senate.  —  William  P.  Fessenden  of  Maine,  James  W.  Grimes  of 
Iowa,  Ira  Harris  of  New  York,  Jacob  M.  Howard  of  Michigan,  George  H.  Williams  of 
Oregon,  and  Reverdy  Johnson  of  Maryland. 

On  the  part  of  the  House.  —  Thaddeus  Stevens  of  Pennsylvania,  Elihu  B.  Washburne 
of  Illinois,  Justin  S.  Morrill  of  Vermont,  John  A.  Bingham  of  Ohio,  Roscoe  Conkling  of 
New  York,  George  S.  Boutwell  of  Massachusetts,  Henry  T.  Blow  of  Missouri,  A.  J. 
Rogers  of  New  Jersey,  and  Henry  Grider  of  Kentucky. 


128  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

sions  of  opinion  that  should  operate  as  instructions  to  the  new  com- 
mittee, but  none  of  them  were  of  marked  importance,  except  as 
indicating  the  pronounced  divergence  of  the  two  parties  regarding 
the  mode  of  reconstruction.  Each  political  party,  in  such  parlia- 
mentary declarations,  seeks  to  get  the  advantage  of  the  other  and 
each  is  in  the  habit  of  overrating  the  importance  of  expressions  in 
this  form.  They  are  diligently  contrived  for  catches  and  committals 
to  be  subsequently  used  in  political  campaigns,  but  it  may  well  be 
doubted  whether  they  ever  produce  substantial  effect  upon  legisla- 
tion or  prove  either  gainful  or  hurtful  in  partisan  contests.  The 
practice  is  somewhat  below  the  dignity  of  a  legislative  body,  has 
never  been  resorted  to  in  the  Senate  and  might  with  great  advan- 
tage be  abandoned  by  the  House. 

The  debate  on  Reconstruction,  perhaps  the  longest  in  the  his- 
tory of  National  legislation,  was  formally  opened  by  Mr.  Thaddeus 
Stevens  on  the  18th  of  December  (1865).  He  took  the  most  radi- 
cal and  pronounced  ground  touching  the  relation  to  the  National 
Government  of  the  States  lately  in  rebellion.  He  contended  that 
"  there  are  two  provisions  in  the  Constitution,  under  one  of  which 
the  case  must  fall."  The  Fourth  Article  says  that  "new  States  may 
be  admitted  by  the  Congress  into  this  Union."  "  In  my  judgment," 
said  Mr.  Stevens,  "this  is  the  controlling  provision  in  this  case. 
Unless  the  law  of  Nations  is  a  dead  letter,  the  late  war  between 
the  two  acknowledged  belligerents  severed  their  original  contracts 
and  broke  all  the  ties  that  bound  them  together.  The  future  condi- 
tion of  the  conquered  power  depends  on  the  will  of  the  conqueror. 
They  must  come  in  as  new  States  or  remain  as  conquered  provinces." 
This  was  the  theory  which  Mr.  Stevens  had  steadily  maintained  from 
the  beginning  of  the  war,  and  which  he  had  asserted  as  frequently 
as  opportunity  was  given  in  the  discussions  of  the  House.  He  pro- 
ceeded to  consider  the  probable  alternative.  "Suppose,"  said  he, 
"as  some  dreaming  theorists  imagine,  that  these  States  have  never 
been  out  of  the  Union,  but  have  only  destroyed  their  State  govern- 
ments, so  as  to  be  incapable  of  political  action,  then  the  fourth  section 
of  the  Fourth  Article  applies,  which  says,  4  The  United  States  shall 
guarantee  to  every  State  in  this  Union  a  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment.' "  "  But,"  added  he,  "  who  is  the  United  States  ?  Not  the 
Judiciary,  not  the  President ;  but  the  sovereign  power  of  the  people, 
exercised  through  their  representatives  in  Congress,  with  the  concur- 
rence of  the  Executive.  It  means  political  government  —  the  con- 


POLITICAL  COURSE  OF  HENRY  J.  RAYMOND.  131 

on  the  18th  of  December,  and  Congress  had  already  voted  to  adjourn 
on  the  21st  for  the  Christmas  recess.  The  Administration  desired 
that  Mr.  Stevens's  speech  should  not  be  permitted  to  go  unanswered 
to  the  country  and  thus  hold  public  attention  until  Congress  should 
re-assemble  in  January.  It  was  important  that  some  response  be 
made  to  it  at  once ;  and  Mr.  Henry  J.  Raymond,  widely  known  to 
the  political  world  but  now  in  Congress  for  the  first  time,  was  selected 
to  make  the  reply. 

In  a  political  career  that  was  marked  by  many  inconsistencies, 
as  consistency  is  measured  by  the  party  standard,  with  a  disposition 
not  given  to  close  intimacies  or  warm  friendships,  Mr.  Raymond  had 
continuously  upheld  the  public  course  of  Mr.  Seward,  and  had  main- 
tained a  singular  steadiness  of  personal  attachment  to  the  illustrious 
statesman  from  New  York.  On  the  other  hand,  he  was  the  rival  of 
Horace  Greeley  in  the  field  of  journalism  and  had  become  person- 
ally estranged  from  the  founder  of  the  Tribune  ;  though  in  his  early 
manhood  he  had  been  one  of  his  editorial  assistants.  The  fact  that 
the  Tribune  was  against  the  Administration  would  of  itself  dispose 
Mr.  Raymond  to  support  it.  But  aside  from  this  consideration, 
the  chivalric  devotion  of  Mr.  Raymond  to  Mr.  Seward  would  have 
great  weight  in  determining  his  position  in  the  pending  conflict.  Mr. 
Seward's  committal  to  the  policy  and  the  assault  upon  it  by  the 
New-York  Tribune  would  therefore  through  affection  on  the  one 
side  and  prejudice  on  the  other,  naturally  fix  Mr.  Raymond's  posi- 
tion. He  had  acquired  wide  and  worthy  fame  as  conductor  of 
the  New-York  Times,  had  achieved  a  high  reputation  as  a  polemical 
writer,  was  well  informed  on  all  political  issues  and  added  to  his 
power  with  the  pen  the  gift  of  ready  and  effective  speech. 

On  the  twenty-first  day  of  December,  the  last  day  before  the 
recess,  Mr.  Raymond,  desiring  the  floor,  was  somewhat  chagrined  to 
find  himself  preceded  by  Mr.  Finck  of  Ohio,  a  respectable  gentle- 
man of  the  Vallandigham  type  of  Democrat,  —  representing  a  political 
school  whose  friendship  to  the  Administration  at  that  time  was  a 
millstone  about  its  neck.  Mr.  Raymond  followed  Mr.  Finck  late  in 
the  day,  and  could  not  help  showing  his  resentment  that  the  ground 
which  the  Administration  intended  to  occupy  should  be  so  promptly 
pre-empted  by  the  anti-war  party  of  the  country.  "  I  have,"  said  Mr. 
Raymond  at  the  opening  of  his  speech,  "  no  party  feeling  which  would 
prevent  me  from  rejoicing  in  the  indications  apparent  on  the  Demo- 
cratic side  of  the  House,  of  a  purpose  to  concur  with  the  loyal 


132  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Administration  of  the  Government  and  with  the  loyal  majorities  in 
both  Houses  of  Congress  in  restoring  peace  and  order  to  our  common 
country.  I  cannot,  however,  help  wishing,  sir,  that  these  indications 
of  an  interest  in  the  preservation  of  our  Government  had  come  some- 
what sooner.  I  cannot  help  feeling  that  such  expressions  cannot  now 
be  of  as  much  use  to  the  country  as  they  might  onoe  have  been.  If 
we  could  have  had  from  that  side  of  the  House  such  indications  of  an 
interest  in  the  preservation  of  the  Union,  such  heartfelt  sympathy 
with  the  friends  of  the  Government  for  the  preservation  of  that 
Union,  such  hearty  denunciations  for  all  those  who  were  seeking  its 
destruction,  while  the  war  was  raging,  I  am  sure  we  might  have  been 
spared  some  years  of  war,  some  millions  of  money  and  rivers  of 
blood  and  tears."  This  utterance  was  sharpened  and  made  signifi- 
cant by  the  manner  and  by  the  accent  of  Mr.  Raymond.  No  more 
pointed  rebuke,  no  more  keen  reproach  (not  intended  for  Mr.  Finck 
personally,  but  for  his  party)  could  have  been  administered.  What 
the  Administration  or  especially  what  Mr.  Seward  desired,  and  what 
Mr.  Raymond  was  to  speak  for,  was  Republican  support ;  and  the 
prior  indorsement  of  Mr.  Johnson's  position  by  the  Democracy  was 
a  hinderance  and  not  a  help  to  the  cause  he  had  espoused. 

Mr.  Raymond's  principal  aim  was  to  join  issue  with  Mr.  Stevens 
on  his  theory  of  dead  States.  "  The  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania," 
said  Mr.  Raymond,  "  believes  that  what  we  have  to  do  is  to  create 
new  States  out  of  this  conquered  territory,  at  the  proper  time,  many 
years  distant,  retaining  them  meanwhile  in  a  territorial  condition, 
and  subjecting  them  to  precisely  such  a  state  of  discipline  and  tute- 
lage as  Congress  and  the  Government  of  the  United  States  may  see 
fit  to  prescribe.  If  I  believed  in  the  premises  he  assumes,  possibly 
though  I  do  not  think  probably,  I  might  agree  with  the  conclusion 
he  has  reached ;  but,  sir,  I  cannot  believe  that  these  States  have  ever 
been  out  of  the  Union  or  that  they  are  now  out  of  the  Union.  If 
they  were,  sir,  how  and  when  did  they  become  so  ?  By  what  specific 
act,  at  what  precise  time,  did  any  one  of  those  States  take  itself  out 
of  the  American  Union?  Was  it  by  the  ordinance  of  secession?  I 
think  we  all  agree  that  an  ordinance  of  secession  passed  by  any  State 
of  the  Union  is  simply  a  nullity  because  it  encounters  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  which  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land. 

"Did  the  resolutions  of  those  States,"  continued  Mr.  Raymond, 
"the  declarations  of  their  officials,  the  speeches  of  the  members  of 
their  Legislatures,  or  the  utterances  of  their  press,  accomplish  the 


RECONSTRUCTION  DEBATE  CONTINUED.  133 

result  desired  ?  Certainly  not.  All  these  were  simply  declarations 
of  a  purpose  to  secede.  Their  secession,  if  it  ever  took  place,  cer- 
tainly could  not  date  from  the  time  when  their  intention  to  secede 
was  first  announced.  They  proceeded  to  sustain  their  purpose  of 
secession  by  arms  against  the  force  which  the  United  States  brought 
to  bear  against  them.  Were  their  arms  victorious?  If  they  were, 
then  their  secession  was  an  accomplished  fact.  If  not,  it  was  nothing 
more  than  an  abortive  attempt  —  a  purpose  unfulfilled.  They  failed 
to  maintain  their  ground  by  force  of  arms.  In  other  words,  they 
failed  to  secede." 

Mr.  Raymond's  speech  was  listened  to  with  profound  attention, 
and  evoked  the  high  compliment  of  frequent  interruptions  from  lead- 
ing men  on  the  Republican  side  of  the  House.  Messrs.  Schenck, 
Bingham  and  Spalding  of  Ohio,  Mr.  Jenckes  of  Rhode  Island,  and 
Mr.  Kelley  of  Pennsylvania,  all  put  pointed  questions  and  were  at 
once  answered  with  undoubted  tact  and  cleverness.  Mr.  Raymond 
was  helped  to  a  specious  point  by  Mr.  Niblack  of  Indiana,  of  which 
he  made  prompt  and  vigorous  use,  to  the  effect  that  the  theory  of 
Mr.  Stevens,  if  carried  to  its  legitimate  consequences,  would  make 
those  who  resisted  the  Confederacy  in  the  insurrectionary  States 
guilty  of  treason  to  that  power ;  and  that  therefore  "  we  would  be 
unable  to  talk  of  loyal  men  in  the  South.  Loyal  to  what?  Loyal 
to  a  foreign  and  independent  power,  which  the  gentleman  from 
Pennsylvania  was  really  maintaining  the  Confederacy  for  the  time 
being  to  represent." 

Immediately  after  the  recess  the  Reconstruction  debate  was  re- 
sumed, and  an  able  speech  made  by  Mr.  Spalding  of  Ohio,  reviewing 
the  subject  generally  rather  than  specifically  replying  to  Mr.  Ray- 
mond. Representing  one  of  the  districts  of  the  Western  Reserve 
(the  most  radical  section  of  the  United  States),  it  is  interesting  to 
see  what  Mr.  Spalding  declared  would  be  satisfactory  to  the  mass 
of  his  constituents  as  conditions  precedent  to  the  re-admission  of  the 
rebel  States.  He  laid  down  five  requirements :  First,  "to  give  a  quali- 
fied right  of  suffrage  to  the  freedmen  in  the  District  of  Columbia ; " 
second,  to  "so  amend  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  that 
people  of  color  shall  not  be  counted  with  the  population  in  making 
np  the  ratio  of  representation  in  Congress,  except  in  those  States 
where  they  are  permitted  to  exercise  the  elective  franchise ; "  third, 
"to  insert  a  provision  in  the  Constitution  prohibiting  nullification 
and  secession ; "  fourth,  "  to  insert  a  provision  in  the  Constitution 


134  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

prohibiting  the  repudiation  of  the  National  debt  and  also  prohibiting 
the  assumption  of  the  rebel  debt ; "  fifth,  to  provide  in  the  Consti- 
tution that  "  no  person  who  has  at  any  time  taken  up  arms  against 
the  United  States  shall  ever  be  admitted  to  a  seat  in  the  Senate  or 
House  of  Representatives." 

On  the  eighth  day  of  January,  two  days  after  the  re-assembling 
of  Congress,  Mr.  Shellabarger  of  Ohio  specifically  answered  the 
speech  of  Mr.  Raymond.  He  spoke  with  care  and  preparation,  as 
was  his  habit.  He  wasted  no  words,  but  in  clear,  crisp  sentences 
subjected  the  whole  question  to  the  rigid  test  of  logic.  "I  shall 
inquire,"  said  Mr.  Shellabarger,  "whether  the  Constitution  deals 
with  States.  I  shall  discuss  the  question  whether  an  organized 
rebellion  against  a  government  is  an  organized  State  in  that  govern- 
ment ;  whether  that  which  cannot  become  a  State  until  all  its  officers 
have  sworn  to  support  the  Constitution,  remains  a  State  after  they 
have  all  sworn  to  overthrow  that  Constitution.  If  I  find  it  does 
continue  to  be  a  State  after  that,  then  I  shall  strive  to  ascertain 
whether  it  will  so  continue  to  be  a  Government  —  a  State  —  after, 
by  means  of  universal  treason,  it  has  ceased  to  have  any  constitu- 
tion, laws,  legislatures,  courts,  or  citizens  in  it." 

"  If,  in  debating  this  question,"  continued  Mr.  Shellabarger,  "  I 
debate  axioms,  my  apology  is  that  there  are  no  other  questions  to 
debate  in  Reconstruction.  If,"  said  he  with  well-timed  sarcasm,  "  in 
the  discussion,  I  make  self-evident  things  obscure  or  incomprehen- 
sible, my  defense  shall  be  that  I  am  conforming  to  the  usages  of 
Congress.  I  will  not  inquire  whether  any  subject  of  this  Govern- 
ment, by  reason  of  the  revolt,  passed  from  under  its  sovereignty  or 
ceased  to  owe  it  allegiance  ;  nor  shall  I  inquire  whether  any  territory 
passed  from  under  that  jurisdiction,  because  I  know  of  no  one  who 
thinks  that  any  of  these  things  did  occur.  I  shall  not  consider 
whether,  by  the  Rebellion,  any  State  lost  its  territorial  character  or 
its  defined  boundaries  or  subdivisions,  for  I  know  of  no  one- who  would 
obliterate  these  geographical  qualities  of  the  States.  These  questions, 
however  much  discussed,  are  in  no  practical  sense  before  Congress." 

"What  is  before  Congress?"  asked  Mr.  Shellabarger.  "I  at 
once  define  and  affirm  it  in  a  single  sentence.  It  is,  under  our 
Constitution,  possible  to,  and  the  late  Rebellion  did  in  fact,  so  over- 
throw and  usurp,  in  the  insurrectionary  States,  the  loyal  State  Gov- 
ernments, as  that  during  such  usurpation  such  States  and  their  people 
ceased  to  have  any  of  the  rights  or  powers  of  Government  as  States 


MR.  SHELLABARGER'S  SIGNIFICANT  SPEECH.  135 

of  this  Union,  and  this  loss  of  the  rights  and  powers  of  Government 
was  such  that  the  United  States  may,  and  ought  to,  assume  and  exer- 
cise local  powers  of  the  lost  State  Governments,  and  may  control 
the  re-admission  of  such  States  to  their  powers  of  Government  in  this 
Union,  subject  to,  and  in  accordance  with,  the  obligation  to  guarantee 
to  each  State  a  republican  form  of  Government." 

Upon  the  broad  proposition  thus  laid  down  by  Mr.  Shellabarger, 
he  proceeded  to  submit  an  argument,  which  for  closeness,  compact- 
ness, consistency  and  strength  has  rarely,  if  ever,  been  surpassed  in 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  Other  speeches  have  gained 
greater  celebrity,  but  it  may  well  be  doubted  whether  any  speech  in 
the  House  of  Representatives  ever  made  a  more  enduring  im- 
pression, or  exerted  greater  convincing  power,  upon  the  minds  of 
those  to  whom  it  was  addressed.  It  was  a  far  more  valuable  exposi- 
tion of  the  Reconstruction  question  than  that  given  by  Mr.  Stevens. 
It  was  absolutely  without  acrimony,  it  contained  no  harsh  word,  it 
made  no  personal  reflection ;  but  the  whole  duty  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  whole  power  of  the  United  States  to  do  its  duty, 
were  set  forth  with  absolute  precision  of  logic.  The  Reconstruction 
debate  continued  for  a  long  time  and  many  able  speeches  were 
contributed  to  it.  While  much  of  value  was  added  to  that  which 
Mr.  Shellabarger  had  stated,  no  position  taken  by  him  was  ever 
shaken. 

Mr.  Raymond  had  asked  repeatedly  and  with  great  emphasis 
what  specific  act  had  deprived  the.se  rebellious  States  of  their  rights 
as  States  of  the  Union.  Mr.  Shellabarger  gave  an  answer  to  that 
question,  which,  as  a  caustic  summary,  is  worthy  to  be  quoted  in 
full.  "  I  answer  him,"  said  the  member  from  Ohio,  "  in  the  words 
of  the  Supreme  Court.  'The  causeless  waging  against  their  own 
Government  of  a  war  which  all  the  world  acknowledge  to  have  been 
the  greatest  civil  war  known  in  the  history  of  the  human  race.' 
That  war  was  waged  by  these  people  as  States,  and  it  went  through 
long,  dreary  years.  In  it  they  threw  off  and  defied  the  authority  of 
your  Constitution,  your  laws,  and  your  Government.  They  oblit- 
erated from  their  State  constitutions  and  laws  every  vestige  of 
recognition  of  your  Government.  They  discarded  all  their  official 
oaths,  and  took,  in  their  places,  oaths  to  support  your  enemies'  gov- 
ernment. They  seized,  in  their  States,  all  the  Nation's  property. 
Their  senators  and  representatives  in  your  Congress  insulted,  ban- 
tered, defied  and  then  left  you.  They  expelled  from  their  land  or 


136  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

assassinated  every  inhabitant  of  known  loyalty.  They  betrayed  and 
surrendered  your  arms.  They  passed  sequestration  and  other  Acts 
in  flagitious  violation  of  the  law  of  nations,  making  every  citizen  of 
the  United  States  an  alien  enemy,  and  placing  in  the  treasury  of 
their  rebellion  all  money  and  property  due  such  citizens.  They 
framed  iniquity  and  universal  murder  into  law.  For  years  they 
besieged  your  Capital  and  sent  your  bleeding  armies  in  rout  back 
here  upon  the  very  sanctuaries  of  your  national  power.  Their 
pirates  burned  your  unarmed  commerce  upon  every  sea.  They  carved 
the  bones  of  your  unburied  heroes  into  ornaments  and  drank  from 
goblets  made  out  of  their  skulls.  They  poisoned  your  fountains,  put 
mines  under  your  soldiers'  prisons,  organized  bands  whose  leaders 
were  concealed  in  your  homes,  and  whose  commissions  ordered  the 
torch  to  be  carried  to  your  cities,  and  the  yellow-fever  to  your  wives 
and  children.  They  planned  one  universal  bonfire  of  the  North, 
from  Lake  Ontario  to  the  Missouri.  They  murdered,  by  systems  of 
starvation  and  exposure,  sixty  thousand  of  your  sons  as  brave  and 
heroic  as  ever  martyrs  were.  They  destroyed,  in  the  four  years  of 
horrid  war,  another  army  so  large  that  it  would  reach  almost  around 
the  globe  in  marching-columns.  And  then  to  give  to  the  infernal 
drama  a  fitting  close,  and  to  concentrate  into  one  crime  all  that  is 
criminal  in  crime  and  all  that  is  detestable  in  barbarism,  they  mur- 
dered the  President  of  the  United  States." 

"  I  allude  to  these  horrid  events,"  continued  Mr.  Shellabarger, 
"not  to  revive  frightful  memories,  or  to  bring  back  the  impulses 
towards  the  perpetual  severance  of  this  people  which  they  provoke. 
I  allude  to  them  to  remind  us  how  utter  was  the  overthrow  and  the 
obliteration  of  all  government,  divine  and  human,  how  total  was  the 
wreck  of  all  constitutions  and  laws,  political,  civil  and  international. 
I  allude  to  them  to  condense  their  monstrous  enormities  of  guilt  into 
one  crime,  and  to  point  the  gentleman  from  New  York  to  it  and  to 
tell  him  that  that  was  the  specific  act" 

Mr.  Voorhees  of  Indiana  followed  on  the  day  succeeding  Mr.  Shel- 
labarger's  speech,  in  support  of  a  series  of  resolutions  which  he  had 
offered  on  the  same  day  that  Mr.  Raymond  addressed  the  House,  still 
further  embarrassmg  Mr.  Raymond  by  the  proffer  of  Democratic 
support,  and  proportionately  discouraging  the  Republicans  from 
coming  forward  in  aid  of  the  Administration.  The  resolutions  of 
Mr.  Voorhees  declared  in  effect  that  "the  President's  message  is 
-regarded  by  the  House  as  an  able,  judicious  and  patriotic  State 


RELATION  OF  THE  PRESIDENT  AND  CONGRESS.  137 

paper ; "  that  "  the  principles  therein  advocated  are  the  safest  and 
most  practicable  that  can  be  applied  to  our  disordered  domestic 
affairs  ; "  that  "  no  State  or  number  of  States  confederated  together 
can  in  any  manner  sunder  their  connection  with  the  Federal  Union ; " 
and  that  "  the  President  is  entitled  to  the  thanks  of  Congress  and 
the  country  for  his  faithful,  wise  and  successful  efforts  to  restore 
civil  government,  law  and  order  to  the  States  lately  in  rebellion." 
Mr.  Voorhees  made  an  exhaustive  speech  in  support  of  these  resolu- 
tions, indicating  very  plainly  the  purpose  of  the  Democratic  party 
to  combine  in  support  of  the  President.  He  was  answered  promptly 
and  eloquently,  though  not  without  some  display  of  temper,  by  Mr. 
Bingham  of  Ohio,  who  at  the  close  of  his  speech  moved  a  substitute 
for  the  series  of  propositions  made  by  Mr.  Voorhees  —  simply  declar- 
ing that "  this  House  has  an  abiding  confidence  in  the  President,  and 
that  in  the  future  as  in  the  past,  he  will  co-operate  with  Congress  in 
restoring  to  equal  position  and  rights  with  the  other  States  in  the 
Union,  the  States  lately  in  insurrection." 

Up  to  this  period  there  had  been  no  outbreak  of  the  Republican 
party  against  the  President.  There  had  been  coolness  and  general 
distrust,  with  resentment  and  anger  on  the  part  of  many,  but  the 
hope  of  his  co-operation  with  the  party  had  not  yet  been  entirely 
abandoned.  Mr.  Bingham's  resolution  represented  this  hope,  if  not 
expectation,  but  the  Republican  members  of  the  House  were  not 
willing  to  make  so  emphatic  a  declaration  of  their  confidence  as  that 
resolution  would  imply ;  and  when  Mr.  Bingham  demanded  the  pre- 
vious question  he  was  interrupted  by  Mr.  Stevens,  who  suggested 
that  the  whole  subject  be  referred  to  the  Joint  Committee  on  Recon- 
struction. Mr.  Bingham  changed  his  motion  accordingly;  and  the 
roll  being  called,  the  series  of  resolutions  offered  by  Mr.  Voorhees, 
with  the  substitute  of  Mr.  Bingham,  were  sent  to  the  Committee  on 
Reconstruction  by  107  ayes  against  32  noes.  Mr.  Raymond  and  his 
colleague,  Mr.  William  A.  Darling,  were  the  only  Republicans  who 
voted  with  the  Democrats.  The  act  was  simple  in  a  parliamentary 
sense,  but  its  significance  was  unmistakable.  A  House,  four-fifths 
of  whose  members  were  Republicans,  had  refused  to  pass  a  resolution 
expressing  confidence  in  the  President  who,  fourteen  months  before, 
had  received  the  vote  of  every  Republican  in  the  Nation.  From  that 
day,  January  9th,  1866,  the  relation  of  the  dominant  party  in  Con- 
gress to  the  President  was  changed.  It  may  not  be  said  that  all 
hope  of  reconciliation  was  abandoned,  but  friendly  co-operation  to 
any  common  end  became  extremely  difficult. 


138  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Mr.  Raymond  was  bitterly  disappointed.  Few  members  had  ever 
entered  the  House  with  greater  personal  prestige  or  with  stronger 
assurance  of  success.  He  had  come  with  a  high  ambition,  —  an  ambi- 
tion justified  by  his  talent  and  training.  He  had  come  with  the 
expectation  of  a  Congressional  career  as  successful  as  that  already 
achieved  in  his  editorial  life.  But  he  met  a  defeat  which  hardly  fell 
short  of  a  disaster.  He  had  made  a  good  reply  to  Mr.  Stevens,  had 
indeed  gained  much  credit  by  it,  and  when  he  returned  home  for  the 
holidays  he  had  reason  to  believe  that  he  had  made  a  brilliant  begin- 
ning in  the  parliamentary  field.  But  the  speech  of  Mr.  Shellabarger 
had  destroyed  his  argument,  and  had  given  a  rallying-point  for  the 
Republicans,  so  incontestably  strong  as  to  hold  the  entire  party  in 
allegiance  to  principle  rather  than  in  allegiance  to  the  Administra- 
tion. If  any  thing  had  been  needed  to  complete  Mr.  Raymond's 
discomfiture  after  the  speech  of  Mr.  Shellabarger,  it  was  supplied  in 
the  speech  of  Mr.  Voorhees.  He  had  been  ranked  among  the  most 
virulent  opponents  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  Administration,  had  been  bit- 
terly denunciatory  of  the  war  policy  of  the  Government,  and  was 
regarded  as  a  leader  of  that  section  of  the  Democratic  party  to  which 
the  most  odious  epithets  of  disloyalty  had  been  popularly  applied. 
Mr.  Raymond,  in  speaking  of  the  defeat,  always  said  that  the  Demo- 
crats had  destroyed  Johnson  by  their  support,  and  that  he  could  have 
effected  a  serious  division  in  the  ranks  of  Republican  members  if  he 
could  have  had  the  benefit  of  the  hostility  of  Mr.  Voorhees  and  other 
anti-war  Democrats. 

Three  weeks  after  Mr.  Shellabarger's  reply  Mr.  Raymond  made 
a  rejoinder.  He  struggled  hard  to  recover  the  ground  which  he  had 
obviously  lost,  but  he  did  not  succeed  in  changing  his  status  in  the 
House,  or  in  securing  recruits  for  the  Administration  from  the  ranks 
of  his  fellow  Republicans.  To  fail  in  that  was  to  fail  in  every  tiling. 
That  he  made  a  clever  speech  was  not  denied,  for  every  intellectual 
effort  of  Mr.  Raymond  exhibited  cleverness.  That  he  made  the 
most  of  a  weak  cause,  and  to  some  extent  influenced  public  opinion, 
must  also  be  freely  conceded.  But  his  most  partial  friends  were 
compelled  to  admit  that  he  had  absolutely  failed  to  influence  Repub- 
lican action  in  Congress,  and  had  only  succeeded  in  making  himself 
an  apparent  ally  of  the  Democratic  party  —  a  position  in  every  way 
unwelcome  and  distasteful  to  Mr.  Raymond.  His  closing  speech  was 
marked  by  many  pointed  interruptions  from  Mr.  Shellabarger  and 
was  answered  at  some  length  by  Mr.  Stevens.  But  nothing,  beyond 


PARLIAMENTARY  FAILURE  OF  MR.  RAYMOND.  189 

a  few  keen  thrusts  and  parries  and  some  sharp  wit  at  Mr.  Raymond's 
expense,  was  added  to  the  debate. 

Mr.  Raymond  never  rallied  from  the  defeat  of  January  9th.  His 
talents  were  acknowledged ;  his  courteous  manners,  his  wide  intelli- 
gence, his  generous  hospitality,  gave  him  a  large  popularity ;  but  his 
alliance  with  President  Johnson  was  fatal  to  his  political  fortunes. 
He  had  placed  himself  in  a  position  from  which  he  could  not  with 
grace  retreat,  and  to  go  forward  in  which  was  still  further  to  blight 
his  hopes  of  promotion  in  his  party.  It  was  an  extremely  mortifying 
fact  to  Mr.  Raymond  that  with  the  power  of  the  Administration 
behind  him  he  could  on  a  test  question  secure  the  support  of  only 
one  Republican  member,  and  he  a  colleague  who  was  bound  to  him 
by  ties  of  personal  friendship. 

The  fate  which  befell  Mr.  Raymond,  apart  from  the  essential 
weakness  of  the  issue  on  which  he  staked  his  success,  is  not  uncom- 
mon to  men  who  enter  Congress  with  great  reputation  already 
attained.  So  much  is  expected  of  them  that  their  efforts  on  the 
floor  are  almost  sure  to  fall  below  the  standard  set  up  for  them  by 
their  hearers.  By  natural  re-action  they  receive,  in  consequence,  less 
credit  than  is  their  due.  Except  in  a  few  marked  instances  the  House 
has  always  been  led  by  men  whose  reputation  has  been  acquired  in 
its  service.  Entering  unheralded,  free  from  the  requirements  which 
expectation  imposes,  a  clever  man  is  sure  to  receive  more  credit  than 
is  really  his  due  when  he  is  so  fortunate  as  to  arrest  the  attention  of 
members  in  his  first  speech.  Thenceforward,  if  he  be  discreet  enough 
to  move  slowly  and  modestly,  he  acquires  a  secure  standing  and  may 
reach  the  highest  honors  which  the  House  can  confer. 

If,  ambitious  of  a  career,  Mr.  Raymond  had  been  elected  to  Con- 
gress when  he  was  chosen  to  the  New- York  Legislature  at  twenty- 
nine  years  of  age,  or  five  years  later  when  he  was  made  Lieutenant- 
governor  of  his  State,  he  might  have  attained  a  great  parliamentary 
fame.  It  has  long  been  a  tradition  of  the  House  that  no  man  be- 
comes its  leader  who  does  not  enter  it  before  he  is  forty.  Like  most 
sweeping  affirmations  this  has  its  exceptions,  but  the  list  of  young 
men  who  have  been  advanced  to  prominent  positions  in  the  body 
is  so  large  that  it  may  well  be  assumed  as  the  rule  of  promotion. 
Mr.  Raymond  was  nearly  forty-six  when  he  made  his  first  speech  in 
the  House.  While  he  still  exhibited  the  intellectual  acuteness  and 
alertness  which  had  always  been  his  characteristics,  there  was  ap- 
parent in  his  face  the  mental  weariness  which  had  come  from  the 


140  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

prolonged  and  exacting  labor  of  his  profession.  His  parliamentary 
failure  was  a  keen  disappointment  to  him,  and  was  not  improbably 
one  among  many  causes  which  cut  short  a  brilliant  and  useful  life. 
He  died  in  1869,  in  the  forty-ninth  year  of  his  age. 


This  first  debate  on  reconstruction  developed  the  fact  that  the 
Democrats  in  Congress  would  endeavor  to  regain  the  ground  they  had 
lost  by  their  hostility  to  Mr.  Lincoln's  Administration  during  the  war. 
The  extreme  members  of  that  party,  while  the  war  was  flagrant, 
adhered  to  many  dogmas  which  were  considered  unpatriotic  and  to 
none  more  so  than  the  declaration  that  even  in  case  of  secession 
"  there  is  no  power  in  the  Constitution  to  coerce  a  State."  They 
now  united  in  the  declaration,  as  embodied  in  the  resolution  of  Mr. 
Voorhees,  that  "no  State  or  number  of  States  confederated  together 
can  in  any  manner  sunder  their  connection  with  the  Federal  Union." 
This  was  intended  as  a  direct  and  defiant  answer  to  the  heretical 
creed  of  Mr.  Stevens,  that  the  States  by  their  attempted  secession 
were  really  no  longer  members  of  the  Union  and  could  not  become 
so  until  regularly  re-admitted  by  Congress.  By  antagonizing  this 
declaration  the  Democrats  strove  to  convince  the  country  that  it 
was  the  accepted  doctrine  of  their  political  opponents,  and  that  they 
were  themselves  the  true  and  tried  friends  of  the  Union. 

The  great  majority  of  the  Republican  leaders,  however,  did  not 
at  all  agree  with  the  theory  of  Mr.  Stevens  and  the  mass  of  the 
party  were  steadily  against  him.  The  one  signal  proof  of  their  dis- 
sent from  the  extreme  doctrine  was  their  absolute  unwillingness  to 
attempt  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  by  the  ratification  of 
three-fourths  of  the  Loyal  States  only,  and  their  insisting  that  it  must 
be  three-fourths  of  all  the  States,  North  and  South.  Mr.  Stevens 
deemed  this  a  fatal  step  for  the  party,  and  his  extreme  opinion  had 
the  indorsement  of  Mr.  Sumner  ;  but  against  both  these  radical  lead- 
ers the  party  was  governed  by  its  own  conservative  instincts.  They 
believed  with  Mr.  Lincoln  that  the  Stevens  plan  of  amendment  would 
always  be  questioned,  and  that  in  so  grave  a  matter  as  a  change  in 
the  organic  law  of  the  Nation,  the  process  should  be  unquestionable 
—  one  that  could  stand  every  test  and  resist  every  assault. 

The  Republicans,  as  might  well  have  been  expected,  did  not 
stand  on  the  defensive  in  such  a  controversy  with  their  opponents. 


REPUBLICANS  BECOME  AGGRESSIVE.  141 

They  became  confidently  aggressive.  They  alleged  that  when  the 
Union  was  in  danger  from  secession  the  Northern  Democrats  did  all 
in  their  power  to  inflame  the  trouble,  urged  the  Southern  leaders  to 
persevere  and  not  yield  to  the  Abolitionists,  and  even  when  war  was 
imminent  did  nothing  to  allay  the  danger,  but  every  thing  to  encour- 
age its  authors.  Now  that  war  was  over,  the  Democrats  insisted  on 
the  offending  States  being  instantly  re-invested  with  all  the  rights  of 
loyalty,  without  promise  and  without  condition.  At  the  beginning 
of  the  war  and  after  its  close,  therefore,  they  had  been  hand  in  hand 
with  the  offending  rebels,  practically  working  at  both  periods  to 
bring  about  the  result  desired  by  the  South.  Their  policy,  in  short, 
seemed  to  have  the  interests  of  the  guilty  authors  of  the  Rebellion 
more  at  heart  than  the  safety  of  the  Union.  Their  efforts  now  to 
clothe  the  Southern  conspirators  with  fresh  power  and  to  take  no 
note  of  the  crimes  which  had  for  four  years  drenched  the  land  in 
blood,  constituted  an  offense  only  less  grave  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Republicans  than  the  aid  and  comfort  given  to  the  Rebellion  in  the 
hour  of  its  inception. 

These  were  the  accusations  and  criminations  which  were  ex- 
changed between  the  political  parties.  They  lent  acrimony  to  the 
impending  canvass  and  increased  the  mutual  hostility  of  those 
engaged  in  the  exciting  controversy.  The  Republicans  were  resolved 
that  their  action  should  neither  be  misinterpreted  by  opposing  parti- 
sans nor  misunderstood  by  the  people.  They  were  confident  that 
when  their  position  should  be  correctly  apprehended  it  would  still 
more  strongly  confirm  their  claim  to  be  the  special  and  jealous 
guardians  of  the  Union  of  the  States  —  of  a  Union  so  strongly  based 
that  future  rebellion  would  be  rendered  impossible,  the  safety  and 
glory  of  the  Republic  made  perpetual. 


CHAPTER    VII. 

SKNATE  DEBATE  ON  RECONSTRUCTION.  —  SPEECH  OF  MR.  WILSON.— -DENOUNCES  THE 
PRO-SLAVERY  STATUTES  OF  SOUTHERN  STATES. — REPLY  OF  REVERDY  JOHNSON  — 
MR.  SUAINER  SUSTAINS  MR.  WlLSON.  —  SPEECHES  OF  WlLLARD  SAULSBURY  AND 
MR.  COWAN.  —  EARNEST  DEBATE  BEFORE  HOLIDAYS.  —  EMBARRASSMENT  OF  THE 
REPUBLICAN  PARTY.  — THE  PRESIDENT'S  PRESUMED  STRENGTH.  — POSITION  OF  COM- 
MERCIAL MEN.  —  FIRMNESS  OF  REPUBLICAN  MEMBERS  OF  CONGRESS.  —  CONTRASTED 
WITH  CONDUCT  OF  WHIGS  IN  1841.  — RESOLUTION  OF  MR.  COWAN.  — MR.  SUMNER'S 
AMENDMENT. — REPORTS  OF  COVODE  AND  SCHURZ  CALLED  FOR.  — PRESIDENT'S  SPE- 
CIAL MESSAGE.  — SENDS  REPORT  OF  MR.  SCHURZ  AND  LIEUTENANT-GENERAL  GRANT. 

—  CALLS  SPECIAL  ATTENTION  TO  GENERAL    GRANT'S    REPORT.  —  REPORT   APPAR- 
ENTLY    SUSTAINS     THE    ADMINISTRATION. — MR.    SUMNER    DENOUNCES    PRESIDENT'S 

MESSAGE.  — COMPARES  JOHNSON  TO  PIERCE. —MR.  SCHURZ'S  REPORT  SUBMITTED. 

—  His  PICTURE  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  CONDITION.  — His  RECOMMENDATIONS.— FAVORS 
NEGRO  SUFFRAGE.  — How  MR.  SCHURZ  WAS  SELECTED. —EXTENT  OF  HIS  TOUR  IN 
THE  SOUTH.  — How  GENERAL  GRANT  WAS  SELECTED.  —  EXT»NT  OF  HIS  TOUR  IN  THE 
SOUTH.  —  DIVERGENT  CONCLUSIONS  OF  THE  Two.  —  SUBSEQUENT  CHANGE  OF  POSI- 
TION OF  BOTH.  —  INTERESTING  CASE  IN  THBT  UNITED-STATES  SENATE.  —  JOHN  P. 
STOCKTON. SWORN  IN  AS  SENATOR  FROM  NEW  JERSEY.  —  PROTEST  AGAINST  HIS  RIGHT 
TO  A  SEAT.  —  JUDICIARY  COMMITTEE  REPORT  IN  HIS  FAVOR.  —  DEBATE  IN  THE  SEN- 
ATE.—MR.  CLARKE  OF  NEW  HAMPSHIRE. —ABLE  SPEECH  OF  MR.  FESSENDEN.— 

HE  EXAMINES  THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  GROUND.— HlS  CONCLUSIVE  REASONING.  —  LONG 

DEBATE.  —  DECISION  AGAINST  MR.  STOCKTON.  —  IMPORTANT  RESULTS  FLOWING 
FROM  IT.  —  CONGRESS  REGULATES  TIME  AND  MANNER  OF  ELECTING  SENATORS. — 
CHANGE  FROM  STATE  CONTROL  TO  NATIONAL  CONTROL.  —  ALEXANDER  G.  CATTELL 
SUCCEEDS  MR.  STOCKTON.  —  DEATH  OF  MR.  WRIGHT.  —  FREDERICK  T.  FRELING- 

HUYSEN  SUCCEEDS  HIM. 

THE  debate  on  the  direct  question  of  Reconstruction  did  not 
begin  at  so  early  a  date  in  the  Senate  as  in  the  House, 
but  kindred  topics  led  to  the  same  line  of  discussion  as  that  in 
which  the  House  found  itself  engaged.  During  the  -first  week  of 
the  session  Mr.  Wilson  of  Massachusetts  had  submitted  a  bill  for 
the  protection  of  freedmen,  designed  to  overthrow  and  destroy  the 
odious  enactments  which  in  many  of  the  Southern  States  were 
rapidly  reducing  the  entire  negro  race  to  a  new  form  of  slavery. 
Mr.  Wilson's  bill  provided  that  "  all  laws,  statutes,  acts,  ordinances, 
rules  and  regulations  in  any  of  the  States  lately  in  rebellion,  where- 
by inequality  of  civil  rights  and  immunities  among  the  inhabitants 

142 


SENATORS  WILSON  AND  JOHNSON.  143 

of  said  States  is  established  or  maintained  by  reason  of  differences 
of  color,  race  or  descent,  are  hereby  declared  null  and  void."  For 
the  violation  of  this  statute  a  punishment  was  provided  by  fine  of 
not  less  than  five  hundred  dollars  nor  more  than  ten  thousand 
dollars,  and  by  imprisonment  not  less  than  six  months  nor  more  than 
five  years. 

In  debating  his  bill  Mr.  Wilson  declared  that  he  had  "no  desire 
to  say  harsh  things  of  the  South  nor  of  the  men  who  have  been 
engaged  in  the  Rebellion.  I  do  not  ask  their  property  or  their 
blood ;  I  do  not  wish  to  disgrace  or  degrade  them ;  but  I  do  wish  that 
they  shall  not  be  permitted  to  disgrace,  degrade  or  oppress  anybody 
else.  I  offer  this  bill  as  a  measure  of  humanity,  as  a  measure  that 
the  needs  of  that  section  of  the  country  imperatively  demand  at  our 
hands.  I  believe  that  if  it  should  pass  it  will  receive  the  sanction  of 
nineteen-twentieths  of  the  loyal  people  of  the  country.*  Men  may 
differ  about  the  power  or  the  expediency  of  giving  the  right  of  suf- 
frage to  the  negro ;  but  how  any  humane,  just  and  Christian  man 
can  for  a  moment  permit  the  laws  that  are  on  the  statute-books  of 
the  Southern  States  and  the  laws  now  pending  before  their  Legisla- 
tures, to  be  executed  upon  men  whom  we  have  declared  to  be  free, 
I  cannot  comprehend." 

Mr.  Reverdy  Johnson  replied  to  Mr.  Wilson  in  a  tone  of  apology 
for  the  laws  complained  of,  but  took  occasion  to  give  his  views  of  the 
status  of  the  States  lately  in  rebellion.  "I  have  now,"  said  Mr. 
Johnson,  "  and  I  have  had  from  the  first,  a  very  decided  opinion  that 
they  are  States  in  the  Union  and  that  they  never  could  have  been 
placed  out  of  the  Union  without  the  consent  of  their  sister  States. 
The  insurrection  terminated,  the  authority  of  the  Government  was 
thereby  re-instated ;  eo  instanti  they  were  invested  with  all  the  rights 
belonging  to  them  originally  —  I  mean  as  States.  ...  In  my  judg- 
ment our  sole  authority  for  the  acts  which  we  have  done  during  the 
last  four  years  was  the  authority  communicated  to  Congress  by  the 
Constitution  to  suppress  insurrection.  If  the  power  can  only  be 
referred  to  that  clause,  in  my  opinion,  speaking  I  repeat  with  great 
deference  to  the  judgment  of  others,  the  moment  the  insurrection 
was  terminated  there  was  no  power  whatever  left  in  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States  over  those  States ;  and  I  am  glad  to  see,  if  I  under- 
stand his  Message,  that  in  the  view  I  have  just  expressed  I  have 
the  concurrence  of  the  President  of  the  United  States." 

Mr.  Sumner  sustained  Mr.  Wilson's  bill  in  an  elaborate  argument 


144  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

delivered  on  the  20th  of  December.  There  was  an  obvious  desire  in 
both  branches  of  Congress  and  in  both  parties  —  those  opposed  to 
the  President's  policy  and  those  favoring  it  —  to  appeal  to  the  popu- 
lar judgment  as  promptly  as  possible,  and  this  led  to  a  prolonged 
and  earnest  debate  prior  to  the  holidays,  an  occurrence  unusual  and 
almost  unprecedented.  Mr.  Sumner  declared  that  Mr.  Wilson's  bill 
was  simply  to  maintain  and  carry  out  the  Proclamation  of  Emanci- 
pation. The  pledge  there  given  was  that  the  Executive  Government 
of  the  United  States,  including  the  military  and  naval  authority 
thereof,  would  recognize  and  maintain  the  freedom  of  such  persons. 
"  This  pledge,"  said  Mr.  Sumner,  "  is  without  limitation  in  space  or 
time.  It  is  as  extended  and  as  immortal  as  the  Republic  itself;  to 
that  pledge  we  are  solemnly  bound ;  wherever  our  flag  floats,  as  long 
as  time  endures,  we  must  see  that  it  is  sacredly  observed.  The 
performance  of  that  pledge  cannot  be  intrusted  to  another,  least  ot 
all  to  the  old  slave-masters,  embittered  against  their  slaves.  It  must 
be  performed  by  the  National  Government.  The  power  that  gave 
freedom  must  see  that  freedom  is  maintained." 

"  Three  of  England's  greatest  orators  and  statesmen,"  continued 
Mr.  Sumner,  "  Burke,  Canning  and  Brougham,  at  successive  periods 
unite  in  declaring,  from  the  experience  of  the  British  West  Indies, 
that  whatever  the  slave-masters  undertook  to  do  for  their  slaves  was 
always  arrant  trifling ;  that  whatever  might  be  its  plausible  form  it 
always  wanted  the  executive  principle.  More  recently  the  Emperor 
of  Russia,  in  ordering  the  emancipation  of  the  serfs,  declared  that  all 
previous  efforts  had  failed  because  they  had  been  left  to  the  sponta- 
neous initiative  of  the  proprietors."  ...  "I  assume  that  we  shall 
not  leave  to  the  old  slave-proprietors  the  maintenance  of  that  freer 
dom  to  which  we  are  pledged,  and  thus  break  our  own  promise  and 
sacrifice  a  race."  In  concluding  his  speech  Mr.  Sumner  referred  to 
the  enormity  of  the  wrongs  against  the  freedmen  as  something  that 
made  the  blood  curdle.  "  In  the  name  of  God,"  said  he,  "  let  us 
protect  them ;  insist  upon  guarantees ;  pass  the  bill  under  considera- 
tion ;  pass  any  bill,  but  do  not  let  this  crying  injustice  rage  any 
longer.  An  avenging  God  cannot  sleep  while  such  things  find  coun- 
tenance. If  you  are  not  ready  to  be  the  Moses  of  an  oppressed 
people,  do  not  become  their  Pharaoh." 

Mr.  Willard  Saulsbury  of  Delaware  made  a  brief  reply  to  Mr. 
Sumner,  not  so  much  to  argue  the  points  put  forward  by  the  senator 
from  Massachusetts,  not  so  much  to  deny  the  facts  related  by  him  or 


SENATORS  SUMNER  AND  COWAN.  145 

to  discuss  the  principles  which  he  had  presented,  as  to  announce 
that  "  it  can  be  no  longer  disguised  that  there  is  in  the  party  which 
elected  the  President  an  opposition  party  to  him.  Nothing  can  be 
more  antagonistic  than  the  suggestions  contained  in  his  Message  and 
the  speeches  already  made  in  both  Houses  of  Congress."  He  adjured 
the  President  to  be  true  and  faithful  to  the  principles  he  had  fore- 
shadowed, and  pledged  him  "  the  support  of  two  million  men  in  the 
States  which  have  not  been  in  revolt,  and  who  did  not  support  him 
for  his  high  office." 

Mr.  Cowan  of  Pennsylvania,  one  of  the  Republican  senators  who 
had  indicated  a  purpose  to  sustain  the  President,  was  evidently  some- 
what stunned  by  Mr.  Sumner's  speech.  He  treated  the  outrages  of 
which  Mr.  Sumner  complained  as  exceptional  instances  of  bad  con- 
duct 011  the  part  of  the  Southern  people.  "  One  man  out  of  ten 
thousand,"  said  Mr.  Cowan,  "  is  brutal  to  a  negro,  and  that  is  pa- 
raded here  as  a  type  of  the  whole  people  of  the  South ;  whereas 
nothing  is  said  of  the  other  nine  thousand  nine  hundred  and  ninety- 
nine  men  who  treat  the  negro  well."  Mr.  Cowan's  argument  was 
altogether  inapposite ;  for  what  Mr.  Sumner  and  Mr.  Wilson  had 
complained  of  was  not  the  action  of  individual  men  in  the  South, 
but  of  laws  solemnly  enacted  by  Legislatures  whose  right  to  act  had 
been  recognized  by  the  Executive  Department  of  the  National  Gov- 
ernment, and  which  had  indeed  been  organized  in  pursuance  of  the 
President's  Reconstruction  policy,  —  almost  in  fact  by  the  personal 
patronage  of  the  President.  The  situation  was  one  very  difficult  to 
justify  by  a  man  with  the  record  of  Mr.  Cowan.  He  had  been  not 
merely  a  Republican  before  his  entrance  into  the  Senate  but  a  radical 
Republican,  taking  ground  in  the  campaign  of  1860  only  less  ad- 
vanced than  that  maintained  by  Mr.  Thaddeus  Stevens  himself. 

These  debates  in  both  Senate  and  House,  at  so  early  a  period  of 
the  session,  give  a  full  and  fair  indication  of  the  temper  which  pre- 
vailed in  the  country  and  in  Congress.  The  majority  of  the  members 
had  not,  at  the  opening  of  the  session,  given  up  hope  of  some  form  of 
co-operation  with  the  President.  As  partisans  and  party  leaders 
they  looked  forward  with  something  of  dismay  to  the  rending  of  all 
relations  with  the  Executive,  and  to  the  surrender  of  the  political 
advantage  which  comes  to  the  party  and  to  the  partisan  from  a  close 
alliance  between  the  Executive  and  Legislative  Departments.  On 
the  re-assembling  of  Congress  after  the  holidays  a  great  change  was 
seen  and  realized  by  all.  It  was  feared  by  many,  even  of  the  most 

VOL.  II.  10 


146  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

conservative,  that  the  policy  of  Congress  and  the  policy  of  the  Presi- 
dent might  come  into  irreconcilable  conflict,  and  that  the  party  which 
had  successfully  conducted  the  Government  through  the  embarrass- 
ments, the  trials  and  the  perils  of  a  long  civil  war,  might  now  be 
wrecked  by  an  angry  controversy  between  two  departments  of  the 
Government,  each  owing  its  existence  to  the  same  great  constitu- 
ency, —  the  loyal  people  of  the  North. 

Circumstances  suggested  the  impossibility  of  a  successful  contest 
against  the  President  and  the  Democratic  party  united.  Even  those 
elections  which  result,  in  the  exuberant  language  of  the  press,  in 
an  overwhelming  victory  on  the  one  side  and  an  overwhelming  defeat 
on  the  other,  are  often  found,  upon  analysis,  to  be  based  on  very 
narrow  margins  in  the  popular  result,  the  reversal  of  which  requires 
only  the  change  of  a  few  thousand  votes.  This  was  demonstrated  in 
many  of  the  great  States,  even  in  the  second  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln, 
when  to  the  general  apprehension  he  was  almost  unanimously  sus- 
tained. From  this  fact  it  was  well  argued  by  Republicans  in  Con- 
gress that  great  danger  to  the  party  was  involved  in  the  impending 
dissension.  Even  the  most  sanguine  feared  defeat,  and  the  naturally 
despondent  already  counted  it  as  certain.  Never  before  had  so 
stringent  a  test  of  principle  been  applied  to  the  members  of  both 
Houses.  The  situation  was  indeed  peculiar.  The  great  statesman 
who  had  been  honored  as  the  founder  of  the  Republican  party  was 
now  closely  allied  with  the  Administration.  His  colleague  who  had 
sat  next  him  in  the  Cabinet  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  who,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  his  partial  friends,  was  the  peer  of  'Mr.  Seward  both  in 
ability  and  in  merit,  did  not  hesitate  to  show  from  the  exalted  seat 
of  the  Chief  Justice  his  strong  sympathy  with  the  President. 

The  leading  commercial  men,  who  had  become  weary  of  war, 
contemplated  with  positive  dread  the  re-opening  of  a  controversy 
which  might  prove  as  disturbing  to  the  business  of  the  country  as 
the  struggle  of  arms  had  been,  and  without  the  quickening  impulses 
to  trade  which  active  war  always  imparts.  The  bankers  of  the  great 
cities,  whose  capital  and  whose  deposits  all  rested  upon  the  credit  of 
the  country  and  were  invested  in  its  paper,  believed  that  the  speedy 
settlement  of  all  dissension  and  the  harmonious  co-operation  of  all 
departments  of  the  Government  were  needed  to  .maintain  the  finan- 
cial honor  of  the  nation  and  to  re-instate  confidence  among  the 
people.  Against  obstacles  so  menacing,  against  resistance  so  omi- 
nous, against  an  array  of  power  so  imposing,  it  seemed  to  be  an  act 


FIRMNESS  OF  THE  REPUBLICAN  PARTY.  147 

of  boundless  temerity  to  challenge  the  President  to  a  contest,  to  array 
public  opinion  against  him,  to  denounce  him,  to  deride  him,  to  defy 
him. 

It  is  to  the  eminent  credit  of  the  Republican  members  of  Con- 
gress that  they  stood  in  a  crisis  of  this  magnitude  true  to  principle, 
firm  against  all  the  power  and  all  the  patronage  of  the  Administra- 
tion. No  unmanly  efforts  to  compromise,  no  weak  shrinking  from 
duty,  sullied  the  fame  of  the  great  body  of  senators  and  representa- 
tives. Even  the  Whig  party  in  1841,  with  Mr.  Clay  for  a  leader, 
did  not  stand  so  solidly  against  John  Tyler  as  the  Republican  party, 
under  the  lead  of  Fessenden  and  Sumner  in  the  Senate  and  of  Thad- 
deus  Stevens  in  the  House,  now  stood  against  the  Administration 
of  President  Johnson.  The  Whigs  of  the  country,  in  the  former 
crisis,  lost  many  of  their  leading  and  most  brilliant  men,  — a  sufficient 
number  indeed  to  compass  the  defeat  of  Mr.  Clay  three  years  later. 
The  loss  to  the  Republican  party  now  was  so  small  as  to  be  unfelt 
and  almost  invisible  in  the  political  contests  into  which  the  party 
was  soon  precipitated.  The  Whigs  of  1841  were  contending  only  for 
systems  of  finance,  and  they  broke  finally  with  the  President  because 
of  his  veto  of  a  bill  establishing  a  fiscal  agency  for  the  use  of  the 
Government,  —  merely  a  National  Bank  disguised  under  another 
name.  The  Republicans  of  1866  were  contending  for  a  vastly  greater 
stake,  — for  the  sacred  cess  of  human  rights,  for  the  secure  foundation 
of  free  government.  Their  constancy  was  greater  than  that  of  the 
Whigs  because  the  rig'  ts  of  person  transcend  the  rights  of  property. 


On  the  12th  of  December  Mr.  Cowan  had  submitted  a  resolution 
requesting  the  President  to  furnish  to  the  Senate  information  of 
"  the  condition  of  that  portion  of  the  United  States  lately  in  rebellion  ; 
whether  the  rebellion  has  been  suppressed  and  the  United  States 
again  put  in  possession  of  the  States  in  which  it  existed ;  whether 
the  United-States  post-offices  are  re-established  and  the  revenues  col- 
lected therefrom  ;  and  also^  whether  the  people  of  those  States  have 
re-organized  their  State  governments  ;  and  whether  they  are  yielding 
obedience  to  the  laws  and  Government  of  the  United  States."  Mr. 
Sumner  moved  an  amendment,  directing  the  President  to  furnish  to 
the  Senate  at  the  same  time  "  copies  of  such  reports  as  he  may  have 
received  from  the  officers  or  agents  appointed  to  visit  this  portion  of 


148  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

the  Union,  including  especially  any  reports  from  the  Honorable  John 
Covode  and  Major-General  Carl  Schurz."  The  President's  message, 
sent  to  the  Senate  a  week  later,  in  response  to  this  resolution,  was 
brief,  being  simply  a  statement  of  what  had  been  accomplished  by  his 
Reconstruction  policy,  with  an  expression  of  his  belief  that  "  sectional 
animosity  is  surely  and  rapidly  merging  itself  into  a  spirit  of  nation- 
ality ;  that  representation,  connected  with  a  properly  adjusted  system 
of  taxation,  will  result  in  a  harmonious  restoration  of  the  relations  of 
the  States  to  the  National  Union."  He  transmitted  the  report  of  Mr. 
Schurz  and  also  invited  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  a  report  of 
Lieutenant-General  Grant,  who  had  recently  made  a  tour  of  inspec- 
tion through  several  of  the  States  lately  in  rebellion. 

The  President  evidently  desired  that  General  Grant's  opinions 
concerning  the  South  should  be  spread  before  the  public.  From 
the  high  character  of  the  General-in-Chief  and  his  known  relations 
with  the  prominent  Republicans  in  Congress,  the  Administration 
hoped  that  great  influence  would  be  exerted  by  the  communica- 
tion of  his  views.  His  report  was  short  and  very  positive.  He  de- 
clared his  belief  that  "  the  mass  of  thinking  men  of  the  South  accept 
the  present  situation  of  affairs  in  good  faith."  At  the  same  time  he 
thought  that  "  four  years  of  war  have  left  the  people  possibly  in  a 
condition  not  ready  to  yield  that  obedience  to  civil  authority  which 
the  American  people  have  been  in  the  habit  ct  yielding,  thus  render- 
ing the  presence  of  small  garrisons  throughon  t  those  States  necessary 
until  such  time  as  labor  returns  to  its  prc  er  channels  and  civil 
authority  is  fully  established." 

It  was  General  Grant's  opinion  however  that  acquiescence  in  the 
authority  of  the  General  Government  was  so  universal  throughout 
the  portions  of  the  country  he  visited,  that  "  the  mere  presence  of  a 
military  force,  without  regard  to  numbers,  is  sufficient  to  maintain 
order."  He  urged  that  only  white  troops  be  employed  in  the  South. 
The  presence  of  black  troops,  he  said,  "  demoralizes  labor  "  and  "  fur- 
nishes in  their  camps  a  resort  for  freedmen."  He  thought  there  was 
danger  of  collision  from  the  presence  of  black  troops.  His  obser- 
vations led  him  to  the  conclusion  that  "  the  citizens  of  the  Southern 
States  are  anxious  to  return  to  self-government  within  the  Union  as 
soon  as  possible ; "  that  "  during  the  process  of  reconstruction  they 
want  and  require  protection  from  the  Government ; "  that  "  they 
are  in  earnest,  and  wishing  to  do  what  they  think  is  required  by  the 
Government,  not  humiliating  to  them  as  citizens ;  "  and  that  "  if 


GENERAL  GRANT'S  REPORT  ON  THE  SOUTH.  149 

such  a  course  were  pointed  out  they  would  pursue  it  in  good  faith." 
"  The  questions,"  continued  General  Grant,  "  heretofore  dividing  the 
people  of  the  two  sections  —  slavery  and  the  right  of  secession  —  the 
Southern  men  regard  as  having  been  settled  forever  by  the  tribunal 
of  arms.  I  was  pleased  to  learn  from  the  leading  men  whom  I  met  that 
they  not  only  accepted  the  decision  as  final,  but  now  that  the  smoke 
of  battle  has  cleared  away  and  time  has  been  given  for  reflection, 
that  this  decision  has  been  a  fortunate  one  for  the  whole  country." 
He  suggested  that  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  be  put  under  command  of 
military  officers  in  the  respective  departments,  thus  saving  the  ex- 
pense of  a  separate  organization.  This  would  create  a  responsibility 
that  would  secure  uniformity  of  action  throughout  the  South.  His 
general  characterization  of  the  Bureau  was,  that  it  tended  to  impress 
the  freedman  with  the  idea  that  he  would  not  be  compelled  to  work, 
and  that  in  some  way  the  lands  of  his  former  master  were  to  be 
divided  among  the  colored  persons. 

The  supporters  of  the  Administration  considered  General  Grant's 
report  a  strong  justification  of  their  position  towards  the  South,  and 
they  used  it  with  some  effect  throughout  the  country.  The  popu- 
larity of  the  Lieutenant-General  was  boundless,  and  of  course  there 
was  strong  temptation  to  make  the  most  of  whatever  might  be  said 
by  him.  Mr.  Sumner  immediately  demanded  the  reading  of  the 
report  of  Mr.  Schurz.  He  likened  the  message  of  the  President  to 
the  "  whitewashing  "  message  of  President  Pierce  with  regard  to  the 
^ormities  in  Kansas.  "  That,"  said  he,  "  is  its  parallel."  Mr.  Doo- 
little  criticised  the  use  of  the  word  "  whitewashing,"  and  asked  Mr. 
Sumner  to  qualify  it,  but  the  Massachusetts  senator  declared  that  he 
had  "  nothing  to  modify,  nothing  to  qualify,  nothing  to  retract.  In 
former  days  there  was  one  Kansas  that  suffered  under  a  local  power. 
There  are  now  eleven  Kansases  suffering  as  one :  therefore,  as  eleven 
is  more  than  one  so  is  the  enormity  of  the  present  time  more  than  the 
enormity  of  the  days  of  President  Pierce."  Later  in  the  debate,  Mr. 
Sumner  indirectly  qualified  his  harsh  words,  saying  that  he  had  no 
reflection  to  make  on  the  patriotism  or  the  truth  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States.  "  Nev.er  in  public  or  in  private,"  said  he,  "  have 
I  made  such  reflection  and  I  do  not  begin  now.  When  I  spoke  I 
spoke  of  the  document  that  had  been  read  at  the  desk.  I  character- 
ized it  as  I  thought  I  ought  to  characterize  it."  The  distinction  he 
sought  to  make  was  not  clearly  apparent,  the  only  importance  attach- 
ing to  it  being  that  Mr.  Sumner  had  not  yet  concluded  that  a  bitter 


150  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

political  war  was  to  be  made  upon  the  President  of  the  United 
States. 

The  character  of  Mr.  Schurz's  report  at  once  disclosed  the  reason 
of  Mr.  Simmer's  anxiety  to  have  it  printed  with  the  report  of  General 
Grant.  It  was  made  after  a  somewhat  prolonged  investigation  in 
the  States  of  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  and  the 
Department  of  the  Gulf.  Mr.  Schurz's  conclusions  were  that  the 
loyalty  of  the  masses  and  of  most  of  the  leaders  in  the  South  "  con- 
sists in  submission  to  necessity."  Except  in  individual  instances, 
he  found  "  an  entire  absence  of  that  national  spirit  which  forms  the 
basis  of  true  loyalty  and  patriotism."  He  found  that  "  the  emanci- 
pation of  the  slaves  is  submitted  to  only  in  so  far  as  chattel-slavery 
in  the  old  form  could  not  be  kept  up  ;  and  although  the  freedman  is 
no  longer  considered  the  property  of  the  individual  master  he  is  con- 
sidered the  slave  of  society,  and  all  independent  State  legislation  will 
share  the  tendency  to  make  him  such.  The  ordinances  abolishing 
slavery,  passed  by  the  conventions  under  the  pressure  of  circum- 
stances, will  not  be  looked  upon  as  barring  the  establishment  of  a 
new  form  of  servitude."  "Practical  attempts,"  Mr.  Schurz  con- 
tinued, "on  the  part  of  the  Southern  people  to  deprive  the  negro 
of  his  rights  as  a  freedman  may  result  in  bloody  collision,  and  will 
certainly  plunge  Southern  society  into  resistless  fluctuations  and 
anarchical  confusion." 

These  evils,  in  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Schurz,  "  can  be  prevented 
only  by  continuing  the  control  of  the  National  Government  in  the 
States  lately  in  rebellion,  until  free  labor  is  fully  developed  and  firmly 
established.  This  desirable  result  will  be  hastened  by  a  firm  decla- 
ration on  the  part  of  the  Government  that  national  control  in  the 
South  will  not  cease  until  such  results  are  secured."  It  was  Mr. 
Schurz's  judgment  that  "  it  will  hardly  be  possible  to  secure  the  freed- 
man against  oppressive  legislation  and  private  persecution  unless  he 
be  endowed  with  a  certain  measure  of  political  power."  He  felt  sure 
of  the  fact  that  the  "  extension  of  the  franchise  to  the  colored  peo- 
ple, upon  the  development  of  free  labor  and  upon  the  security  of 
human  rights  in  the  South,  being  the  principal  object  in  view,  the 
objections  raised  upon  the  ground  of  the  ignorance  of  the  freedmen 
become  unimportant." 

Mr.  Schurz  made  an  intelligent  argument  in  favor  of  negro 
suffrage.  He  was  persuaded  that  the  Southern  people  would  never 
grant  suffrage  to  the  negro  voluntarily,  and  that  "  the  only  manner 


MR.  SCHURZ'S  REPORT  OX  THE  SOUTH.  151 

in  which  the  Southern  people  can  be  induced  to  grant  to  the  freed- 
men  some  measure  of  self-protecting  power,  in  the  form  of  suffrage, 
is  to  make  it  a  condition  precedent  to  re-admission."  He  remarked 
upon  the  extraordinary  delusion  then  pervading  a  portion  of  the 
public  mind  regarding  the  deportation  of  the  freedmen.  "The 
South,"  he  said,  "  stands  in  need  of  an  increase  and  not  a  diminution 
of  its  laboring-force,  to  repair  the  losses  and  disasters  of  the  last 
four  years.  Much  is  said  of  importing  European  laborers  and  North- 
ern men.  This  is  the  favorite  idea  among  planters,  who  want  such 
emigrants  to  work  on  their  plantations,  but  they  forget  that  Euro- 
pean and  Northern  men  will  not  come  to  the  South  to  serve  as  hired 
hands  on  the  plantations,  but  to  acquire  property  for  themselves; 
and  even  if  the  whole  European  emigration,  at  the  rate  of  two  hun- 
dred thousand  a  year,  were  turned  into  the  South,  leaving  not  a 
single  man  for  the  North  and  West,  it  would  require  between  fifteen 
and  twenty  years  to  fill  the  vacuum  caused  by  the  deportation  of 
freedmen." 

Mr.  Schurz  desired  not  to  be  understood  as  saying  that  "  there  are 
no  well-meaning  men  among  those  who  are  compromised  in  the 
Rebellion.  There  are  many,  but  neither  their  number  nor  their 
influence  is  strong  enough  to  control  the  manifest  tendency  of  the 
popular  spirit."  Apprehending  that  his  report  might  be  antagonized 
by  evidence  of  a  contrary  spirit  shown  in  the  South  by  the  action  of 
their  conventions,  Mr.  Schurz  declared  that  it  was  "  dangerous  to  be 
led  by  such  evidence  into  any  delusions."  "  As  to  the  motives,"  said 
Mr.  Schurz,  "  upon  which  the  Southern  people  acted  when  abolishing 
slavery  (in  their  conventions)  and  their  understanding  of  the  bear- 
ings of  such  acts,  we  may  safely  accept  the  standard  they  have  set 
up  for  themselves."  The  only  argument  of  justification  was  that 
"  they  found  themselves  in  a  situation  where  they  could  do  no  better" 
A  prominent  Mississippian  (General  W.  L.  Brandon)  said  in  a  public 
card,  according  to  Mr.  Schurz,  "My  honest  conviction  is  that  we 
must  accept  the  situation  until  we  can  once  more  get  control  of  our 
own  State  affairs.  ...  I  must  submit  for  the  time  to  evils  I  cannot 
remedy."  Mr.  Schurz  expressed  his  conviction  that  General  Bran- 
don had  "  only  put  in  print  what  a  majority  of  the  people  say  in  more 
emphatic  language." 

The  report  of  Mr.  Schurz  was  quoted  even  more  triumphantly  by 
the  opponents  of  the  President's  policy  than  was  General  Grant's 
by  its  friends.  It  was  a  somewhat  singular  train  of  circumstances 


152  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

that  produced  the  two  reports,  while  the  sequel,  so  far  as  the  authors 
were  involved,  was  quite  as  remarkable  as  the  contradictory  char- 
acter of  the  views  put  forth.  In  the  early  summer  (1865)  when 
Mr.  Johnson  had  yielded  many  of  his  preconceived  views  of  recon- 
struction to  the  persuasions  of  Mr.  Seward,  but  was  still  adhering 
tenaciously  to  some  exactions  which  the  Secretary  of  State  deemed 
unwise  if  not  cruel,  it  had  occurred  to  the  President  to  procure  an 
accurate  and  intelligent  report  of  the  Southern  situation  by  a  man  of 
capacity.  Mr.  Johnson  held  at  that  particular  time  a  middle  ground, 
measuring  from  the  original  point  of  his  extreme  antagonism  towards 
the  Southern  rebels  to  the  subsequent  point  of  his  extreme  antago- 
nism towards  the  Northern  Republicans.  His  selection  of  Mr.  Schurz 
for  the  special  duty  was  deemed  significant,  because  at  that  period 
of  a  political  career  consistent  only  in  the  frequency  and  agility  of 
its  changes  Mr.  Schurz  happened  to  take  an  extreme  position  on  the 
Southern  question  —  one  that  was  in  general  harmony  with  the  views 
entertained  and  avowed  by  Mr.  Sumner.  Mr.  Schurz,  according  to 
his  own  declaration,  had  communicated  his  "views  to  the  President 
in  frequent  letters  and  conversations,"  and  added  an  assurance,  the 
truth  of  which  all  who  know  Mr.  Schurz  will  readily  concede  —  "I 
would  not  have  accepted  the  mission  had  I  not  felt  that  whatever 
preconceived  opinions  I  might  carry  with  me  to  the  South  I  should 
be  ready  to  abandon  or  modify,  as  my  perception  of  facts  and  circum- 
stances might  command  their  abandonment  or  modification." 

Mr.  Schurz  started  on  his  mission  in  the  early  part  of  July,  and 
was  engaged  in  traveling,  observing  and  taking  copious  notes  until 
the  middle  of  the  ensuing  autumn.  His  report  did  not  reach  the 
President  until  the  month  of  November.  In  the  intervening  months 
Mr.  Johnson  had  been  essentially  and  rapidly  changing  his  views, 
—  growing  more  and  more  favorable  to  the  Southern  leaders,  less 
and  less  in  harmony  with  the  Republican  leaders.  He  had  gone  far 
beyond  the  balancing-point  of  impartiality,  where  he  stood  when  he 
was  willing  to  intrust  the  task  of  Southern  investigation  to  a  man 
of  the  radical  views  which  Mr.  Schurz  then  professed.  He  was  now 
altogether  unwilling  to  submit  the  report  of  Mr.  Schurz  to  Congress 
as  an  ex  cathedra  exposition.  If  not  in  some  way  counterbalanced  it 
would  necessarily  be  considered  authoritative,  and  in  a  certain  sense 
accredited  by  the  Administration. 

It  was  the  President's  desire  to  neutralize  the  effect  of  Mr. 
Schurz's  representations,  which  led  to  the  report  of  General  Grant, 


PRESIDENT  JOHNSON  AND   GENERAL  GRANT.  153 

the  chief  points  of  which  have  been  already  quoted.  The  Commander 
of  the  Army  was  necessarily  in  close  relations  with  the  Executive 
Department,  and  was  recognized  by  the  President  as  possessing  an 
extraordinary  popularity  in  the  Northern  States.  During  the  months 
that  had  passed  since  the  war  closed  General  Grant  had  been  re- 
ceived, wherever  he  had  been  induced  to  visit,  with  a  display  of 
enthusiasm  never  surpassed  in  our  country.  The  people  looked  upon 
him  simply  as  the  illustrious  soldier  who  had  led  the  armies  of  the 
Union  to  victory.  They  attributed  to  him  no  political  views  except 
those  of  undying  loyalty  to  his  country,  and  they  sought  no  party 
advantage  from  the  use  of  his  name.  He  had  indeed  made  no  par- 
tisan expressions,  either  during  the  war  or  since  its  close,  on  any 
subject  whatever,  except  the  necessity  of  maintaining  the  Union  — 
and  this  was  a  partisan  question  only  in  consequence  of  the  evil 
course  pursued  by  the  Democratic  party  during  the  closing  years  of 
the  war. 

On  the  civil  and  political  aspects  of  the  situation  General  Grant 
had  not  deemed  it  necessary  to  mature  his  views.  He  desired  above 
all  things  the  speedy  restoration  of  the  Southern  States  to  the  Union 
as  the  legitimate  result  of  the  victories  in  the  field.  But  so  far  as 
action  or  even  the  exertion  of  any  positive  influence  was  involved,  he 
confined  himself  strictly  to  his  duties  as  Commander  of  the  United- 
States  Army.  President  Johnson  saw  an  opportunity  for  turning 
the  prestige  of  General  Grant  to  the  benefit  of  his  Administration. 
Towards  the  close  of  November  the  general  was  starting  South  on 
a  tour  of  military  inspection  "  to  see  what  changes  were  necessary 
in  the  disposition  of  the  forces,  and  to  ascertain  how  they  could  be 
reduced  and  expenses  curtailed."  The  President  requested  him  "  to 
learn  during  his  tour,  as  far  as  possible,  the  feelings  and  intentions 
of  the  citizens  of  the  Southern  States  towards  the  National  Govern- 
ment," —  a  request  with  which  the  general  complied  in  a  perfunctory 
manner,  giving  merely  the  impressions  formed  in  the  rapid  journey 
of  a  few  days.  He  left  Washington  on  the  27th  of  November  and 
passed  through  Virginia  "  without  conversing  or  meeting  with  any 
of  its  citizens."  He  spent  one  day  in  North  Carolina,  one  in  South 
Carolina  and  two  in  Georgia.  This  was  the  whole  extent  of  the 
observation  upon  which  General  Grant  had  innocently  given  his 
views,  without  the  remotest  suspicion  that  his  brief  report  was  to 
figure  largely  in  the  discussions  of  Congress  upon  the  important  and 
absorbing  question  of  reconstruction. 


154  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

The  divergent  conclusions  which  were  thus  made  to  appear  be- 
tween the  authors  of  the  conflicting  reports  did  not  cease  with  this 
single  exhibition.  It  was  soon  perceived  that  in  the  President's 
anxiety  to  parry  the  effect  of  Mr.  Schurz's  report  he  had  placed 
General  Grant  in  a  false  position,  —  a  position  which  no  one  realized 
more  promptly  than  the  General  himself.  Further  investigation  led 
him  to  a  thorough  understanding  of  the  subject  and  to  a  funda- 
mental change  of  opinion.  It  led  him  to  approve  the  reconstruction 
measures  of  the  Republican  party,  and  in  a  subsequent  and  more 
exalted  sphere  to  continue  the  policy  which  these  measures  fore- 
shadowed and  implied.  Mr.  Schurz,  on  the  other  hand,  received  new 
light  and  conviction  in  the  opposite  direction,  and  from  the  point 
of  extreme  Republicanism  he  gradually  changed  his  creed  and  be- 
came, first  a  distracting  element  in  the  ranks  of  the  party,  and  after- 
wards one  of  its  malignant  opponents  in  a  great  national  struggle  in 
which  General  Grant  was  the  leader, — the  aim  of  which  struggle 
was  really  to  maintain  the  views  which  Mr.  Schurz  had,  with  appar- 
ent sincerity,  endeavored  to  enforce  in  his  report  to  President  John- 
son. These  changes  and  alternations  in  the  position  of  public  men 
are  by  no  means  unknown  to  political  life  in  the  United  States,  but 
in  the  case  under  consideration  the  actors  were  conspicuous,  and  for 
that  reason  their  reversal  of  position  was  the  more  marked. 


An  interesting  and  important  case,  relating  to  the  mode  of  electing 
United-States  senators,  came  up  for  decision  at  this  session  and  led 
to  a  prolonged  debate,  which  was  accompanied  with  much  personal 
feeling  and  no  little  acrimony.  —  In  the  winter  and  spring  of  1865  the 
Legislature  of  New  Jersey  was  engaged  in  the  duty. of  choosing  a 
senator  of  the  United  States  to  succeed  John  C.  Ten  Eyck,  whose 
term  was  about  to  expire.  After  many  efforts  at  election  it  had 
been  found  that  no  candidate  was  able  to  secure  c*a  majority  of 
the  votes  of  all  the  members  elected  to  both  Houses  of  the  Legisla- 
ture," which  was  described  in  the  rule  adopted  by  the  joint  con- 
vention of  the  two  Houses  as  the  requisite  to  election.  On  the 
15th  of  March  the  convention  rescinded  this  stringent  rule  and  de- 
clared that  "  any  candidate  receiving  a  plurality  of  votes  of  the  mem- 
bers present  shall  be  declared  duly  elected."  The  Legislature  was 
composed  of  a  Senate  with  twenty-one  members  and  an  Assembly 


THE  NEW-JERSEY  SENATORSHIP.  155 

with  sixty  members.  The  resolution  giving  to  a  plurality  the  power 
to  elect  was  carried  in  the  joint  convention  by  a  majority  of  one  — 
forty-one  to  forty.  In  this  vote  eleven  senators  were  in  the  affirma- 
tive and  ten  in  the  negative,  and  of  the  members  of  the  House  thirty 
were  in  the  affirmative  and  thirty  in  the  negative.  It  was  therefore 
numerically  demonstrated  that  the  resolution  could  not  have  been 
carried  with  the  two  Houses  acting  separately.  There  would  have 
been  a  majority  of  one  in  the  Senate  and  a  tie  in  the  House. 

Proceeding  to  vote  under  this  new  rule,  John  P.  Stockton,  the 
Democratic  candidate,  received  forty  votes,  John  C.  Ten  Eyck,  the 
Republican  candidate,  thirty-seven  votes,  and  four  other  candidates 
one  vote  each.  Forty-one  votes  were  thus  cast  against  Mr.  Stockton, 
but  as  he  had  secured  a  plurality  he  was  duly  elected  according  to 
the  rule  adopted  by  the  joint  convention.  —  Mr.  Stockton  was  thirty- 
nine  years  of  age  at  the  time  of  his  election.  His  family  had  been 
for  several  generations  distinguished  in  the  annals  of  New  Jersey. 
His  great-grandfather  Richard  Stockton  was  a  member  of  the  Conti- 
nental Congress  and  was  a  signer  of  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence ;  his  grandfather  Richard  Stockton  was  a  senator  of  the  United 
States  under  the  administrations  of  Washington  and  John  Adams ; 
his  father  was  the  well-known  Commodore  Robert  F.  Stockton,  who 
was  conspicuously  effective  as  a  naval  officer  in  the  conquest  of  Cali- 
fornia, and  afterwards  a  senator  of  the  United  States.  Mr.  Stockton 
entered  the  Senate,  therefore,  with  personal  prestige  and  a  good  share 
of  popularity  with  his  party. 

On  the  20th  of  March,  five  days  after  the  alleged  election  of  Mr. 
Stockton,  seven  senators  and  thirty-one  members  of  the  Assembly 
forwarded  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  a  protest  against  his 
admission,  for  the  reason  that  he  was  not  elected  by  a  majority  of 
the  votes  of  the  joint  meeting  of  the  Legislature.  The  substantial 
ground  on  which  the  argument  in  the  protest  rested,  was  that  a 
Legislature  means  at  least  a  majority  of  what  constitutes  the  Legis- 
lature as  convened  at  the  moment  of  election.  This  had  been,  as 
they  set  forth  at  length,  the  undoubted  law  and  the  unbroken  usage 
of  New  Jersey,  and  an  election  falling  short  of  this  primary  require- 
ment was  necessarily  invalid.  "  The  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  directs,"  said  this  memorial,  "that  a  senator  must  be  chosen  by 
the  Legislature,  and  a  minority  does  not  constitute  the  Legislature." 
They  illustrated  the  wrongfulness  of  the  position  by  the  reductio 
ad  absurdum.  "  The  consequences  which  are  possible,"  argued  the 


156  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

protestants,  "  from  admitting  the  right  to  elect  by  a  plurality  vote, 
furnish  a  conclusive  argument  against  it.  If  two  members  vote  for 
one  person  and  every  other  member,  by  himself,  for  different  indi- 
viduals, the  person  having  two  votes  would  have  a  plurality.  Can  it 
be  that  in  such  a  case  he  would  be  senator?  This  indeed  is  an 
extreme  case,  but  such  cases  test  the  propriety  of  legal  doctrine,  and 
many  equally  unjust  but  less  extreme  may  easily  be  offered." 

Mr.  Stockton  took  his  seat  on  the  first  day  of  the  ensuing  session 
(December  4,  1865)  and  was  regularly  sworn  in.  At  the- same  time 
the  protest  was  presented  by  Mr.  Cowan  of  Pennsylvania  and  re- 
ferred to  the  Judiciary  Committee.  That  committee  was  composed 
of  five  Republicans  and  two  Democrats,  and  was  therefore  politically 
biased,  if  at  all,  against  Mr.  Stockton.  On  the  30th  of  January, 
after  a  patient  examination  of  nearly  two  months,  the  committee, 
greatly  to  the  surprise  of  the  Republican  side  of  the  chamber,  re- 
ported that  "  Mr.  Stockton  was  duly  elected  and  entitled  to  his 
seat."  The  report  was  said  to  have  been  approved  by  every  member 
of  the  committee  except  Mr.  Clark  of  New  Hampshire.  The  validity 
or  invalidity  of  the  election  hinged  upon  the  ability  of  the  joint  con- 
vention of  the  two  branches  to  declare  a  plurality  sufficient  to  elect. 
The  committee  decided  that  the  convention  possessed  that  power, 
and  the  report,  drawn  by  Mr.  Trumbull,  argued  the  point  with  con- 
siderable ingenuity. 

The  subject  came  up  for  consideration  in  the  Senate  on  the  22d 
of  March  (1866),  Mr.  Clark,  the  dissenting  member  of  the  commit- 
tee, leading  off  in  debate.  He  was  ably  sustained  by  Mr.  Fessenden, 
who  left  little  to  be  said,  as  was  his  habit  in  debating  any  question 
of  constitutional  law.  He  maintained  that  "  the  Legislature,  in  the 
election  of  a  United-States  senator,  is  merely  the  agent  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  to  perform  a  certain  act.  It  is  there- 
fore under  the  control  of  no  other  power.  No  provision  of  the 
Constitution  of  New  Jersey,  directing  the  mode  in  which  a  senator 
shall  be  elected,  or  the  course  that  shall  be  taken,  or  the  rules  of  the 
proceeding,  would  bind  in  any  way  the  Legislature  which  is  to  per- 
form the  act.  Nor  would  any  law  of  a  previous  Legislature  have 
binding  force.  The  existing  Legislature  is  independent  of  every 
thing  except  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  but  while  it  is 
thus  independent  and  may  disregard  those  provisions,  being  the  mere 
agent  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  still  it  must  necessarily  act  as 
a  Legislature  in  the  performance  of  that  duty.  There  must  be  a 


THE  NEW-JERSEY  SENATORSHIP.  157 

legislative  act.  .  .  .  Whatever  is  done  in  relation  to  the  election  of 
a  senator,  must  be  done  as  a  consequence  of  legislative  action,  other- 
wise it  is  no  election  by  the  Legislature.  They  vote  to  form  a  con- 
vention for  the  purpose  of  choosing  a  senator,  and  when  they  meet 
in  convention  that  choice  may  be  made.  If  there  is  legislative  ac- 
tion previously  that  is  sufficient.  The  convention  can  choose  a  sena- 
tor because  there  has  been  legislative  action  which  authorizes  them 
to  choose  a  senator  in  that  form.  The  Legislature,  when  it  votes  to 
go  into  a  convention  of  the  two  branches,  may  provide  the  mode  of 
election.  If  it  desires  to  change  the  ordinary  and  received  law  on 
the  subject  it  may  provide  how  the  election  shall  be  made.  It  may 
say  that  a  plurality  shall  elect  if  it  pleases.  It  may  make  any  pro- 
vision that  it  pleases,  but  it  must  be  done  by  the  Legislature.  It 
must  be  the  legislative  body  which  gives  the  power  that  is  to  settle 
the  mode  of  action.  Now  what  are  the  facts  in  this  case  ?  There 
was  no  provision  whatever  made  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of 
New  Jersey  as  to  the  mode  in  which  the  senator  should  be  chosen. 
The  legislative  action  which  authorized  the  convention  was  perfectly 
silent  upon  that  subject.  What  then  had  the  Legislature  the  right 
to  conclude  ?  Was  it  not  this,  and  this  only? —  that  when  it  author- 
ized a  body  other  than  itself,  though  constituted  of  the  same  mem- 
bers, a  convention  to  choose  a  senator,  that  body  must  proceed  in  the 
choice  of  a  senator  according  to  the  universally  received  Parliamen- 
tary and  common  law  upon  the  subject  of  elections.  But  this  con- 
vention in  New  Jersey,  without  any  legislative  act,  without  any  such 
authority  conferred  upon  it,  without  any  thing  done  on  the  subject  by 
the  Legislature  which  formed  the  body,  undertook  to  say  that  they 
would  change  the  received  and  acknowledged  Parliamentary  and  com- 
mon law  in  their  mode  of  proceeding,  and  instead  of  acting  accord- 
ing to  that  law,  as  the  Legislature  must  have  intended  that  it  should 
do,  would  elect  in  a  totally  different  manner  from  that  prescribed 
by  law,  namely,  by  a  plurality  vote,  for  which  they  had  no  legislative 
sanction  and  for  which  there  was  no  authority  but  their  own  will." 

There  was  a  long  debate  011  the  question,  but  the  argument  sub- 
mitted by  Mr.  Fessenden  was  never  refuted  by  his  opponents,  and 
it  was  practically  repeated  by  every  one  who  concurred  in  his  gen- 
eral views.  Mr.  Stockton  made  an  able  presentation  of  his  own  case, 
perhaps  better  than  any  made  for  him,  but  he  was  never  able  to  evade 
the  point  of  Mr.  Fessen den's  argument,  or  even  to  dull  it.  The  case 
came  to  a  vote  on  the  23d  of  March,  the  first  test  coming  upon  an 


158  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

amendment  to  the  committee's  report,  which  declared  Mr.  Stockton 
44  not  entitled  to  a  seat."  This  amendment  was  defeated  —  yeas  19, 
nays  21.  The  vote  was  then  taken  on  the  direct  question  of  declar- 
ing him  entitled  to  his  seat.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  roll-call  the 
yeas  were  21,  the  nays  20,  when  Mr.  Merrill  of  Maine  rose  and  asked 
to  have  his  name  called.  He  voted  in  the  negative  and  produced  a 
tie.  Thereupon  Mr.  Stockton  rose  and  asked  to  vote.  No  objection 
being  interposed  his  vote  was  received.  The  result  was  then  an- 
nounced 22  yeas  to  21  nays,  thereby  confirming  Mr.  Stockton  in  his 
seat.  Mr.  Stockton,  disclaiming  any  intention  to  reflect  upon  Mr. 
Morrill,  intimated  that  he  was  under  the  obligation  of  a  pair  with 
Mr.  William  Wright  (the  absent  colleague  of  Mr.  Stockton)  and 
therefore  should  not  have  voted.  The  two  had  undoubtedly  been 
paired,  but  Mr.  Morrill  considered  that  the  time,  had  expired  and 
acted  accordingly.  He  was  not  only  a  gentleman  of  scrupulous 
integrity,  but  in  this  particular  case  he  had  taken  counsel  with  his 
colleague,  Mr.  Fessenden,  and  with  Mr.  Sumner,  safe  mentors,  and 
was  advised  by  both  that  he  had  a  clear  right  to  vote.  It  cannot  be 
denied  however  that  Mr.  Merrill's  action  created  much  ill-feeling  on 
the  Democratic  side  of  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Stockton's  determination  to  vote  must  have  been  taken  very 
hastily,  without  due  reflection  on  his  own  part  and  without  the 
advice  of  his  political  associates,  who  should  have  promptly  counseled 
him  against  his  unfortunate  course.  The  Parliamentary  position  of 
the  question,  at  the  moment  he  committed  the  blunder  of  voting,  was 
advantageous  to  him  on  the  record.  The  Senate  had  defeated  by  a 
majority  of  two  the  declaration  that  he  was  not  entitled  to  a  seat, 
and  the  declaration  in  his  favor,  even  after  Mr.  Merrill's  negative 
vote,  stood  at  a  tie.  Nothing  therefore  had  been  done  to  unseat  him, 
and  if  he  had  left  it  at  that  point  he  would  still  have  remained  a 
member  by  the  prima  facie  admission  upon  his  regular  credentials. 

These  proceedings  took  place  on  Friday  and  the  Senate  adjourned 
until  Monday.  Meanwhile  the  obvious  impropriety  of  Mr.  Stockton's 
vote  upon  his  own  case  had  deeply  impressed  many  senators,  and  on 
Monday,  directly  after  the  Journal  was  read,  Mr.  Sumner  raised  a 
question  of  privilege  and  moved  that  the  Journal  of  Friday  be 
amended  by  striking  out  the  vote  of  Mr.  Stockton  on  the  question  of 
his  seat  in  the  Senate.  He  did  this  because,  being  on  the  defeated 
side,  he  could  not  move  a  reconsideration ;  but  Mr.  Trumbull  and 
Mr.  Poland,  who  had  sustained  Mr.  Stockton's  right  to  a  seat,  both 


THE  NEW-JERSEY  SEXATORSHIP.  159 

offered  to  move  a  reconsideration,  because  they  believed  that  he  had 
no  right  to  vote  on  the  question.  Mr.  Poland  made  the  motion  and 
it  was  unanimously  agreed  to.  Then,  instead  of  urging  the  correction 
of  the  Journal  of  Friday,  Mr.  Sumner  proposed  a  resolution  declaring 
that  "  the  vote  of  Mr.  Stockton  be  not  received  in  determining  the 
question  of  his  seat  in  the  Senate,"  which  was  agreed  to  without  a 
division.  The  original  resolution  being  again  before  the  Senate,  Mr. 
Clark  renewed  his  amendment  declaring  that  John  P.  Stockton  was 
not  elected  a  senator  from  New  Jersey,  on  which  the  yeas  were  22 
and  the  nays  21.  As  thus  amended  the  resolution  passed  by  23  yeas 
to  20  nays.  Mr.  Riddle  of  Delaware  voted  with  the  majority  for  the 
purpose  of  moving  a  reconsideration  on  a  succeeding  day  —  a  privi- 
lege from  which  he  was  excluded  by  the  action  of  Mr.  Clark  of  New 
Hampshire,  who  made  the  motion  at  once  with  the  object  of  securing 
its  defeat  and  thereby  exhausting  all  power  to  renew  the  contro- 
versy. Mr.  Clark  of  course  voted  against  his  own  motion,  and  with 
its  rejection  Mr.  Stockton  ceased  to  be  a  member  of  the  Senate. 

More  than  half  of  those  who  sustained  Mr.  Stockton's  right  to  his 
seat  were  Republicans,  or  had,  until  the  current  session  of  Congress, 
acted  with  the  party.  The  majority  of  a  single  vote  by  which  he 
was  ejected  would  have  been  neutralized  if  Mr.  Stockton's  colleague 
could  have  been  present.  Mr.  Wright  was  ill  at  his  home  in  New- 
ark and  contradictory  reports  were  made  as  to  the  time  when 
he  could  probably  be  present.  Some  of  the  Republicans  justified 
their  urgent  demand  for  a  final  vote  on  the  belief  entertained  by 
them  that  Mr.  Wright  would  never  appear  in  the  Senate  again.  As 
matter  of  fact  he  resumed  his  seat  eight  days  after  the  decision  of 
Mr.  Stockton's  case.  His  vote  would  have  changed  the  result.  The 
haste  with  which  the  question  was  brought  to  a  decision  can  hardly 
be  justified,  and  is  a  striking  illustration  of  the  intense  party-feeling 
which  had  been  engendered  by  the  war.  In  a  matter  so  directly 
affecting  the  interests  and  the  feelings  of  the  people  of  New  Jersey 
it  was  certainly  a  hardship  that  the  voice  of  the  State  was  not  heard. 
With  one  senator  excluded  from  voting  by  parliamentary  law  and 
the  other  absent  by  reason  of  physical  disability,  Mr.  Stockton  had 
good  ground  for  declaring  that  the  Senate  had  not  treated  him  with 
magnanimity  or  generosity.  It  is  due  to  Mr.  Stockton  to  say  that 
under  very  trying  circumstances  he  bore  himself  with  moderation 
and  dignity. 

In  the  decision  itself,  however,  there  has  been  general  acquieS' 


160  TWENTY  YEARS  OF   CONGRESS. 

cence,  and  it  led  to  an  important  reform  in  the  manner  of  choosing 
United-States  senators.  The  well-known  Act  of  July  26,  1866, 
"  regulating  the  time  and  manner  of  holding  elections  for  senators 
in  Congress,"  was  the  direct  fruit  of  the  Stockton  controversy. 
Though  it  may  not  be  perfect  in  all  its  details  that  law  has  done 
much  to  insure  the  fair  and  regular  choice  of  senators.  It  has  cer- 
tainly accomplished  a  great  deal  by  preventing  various 'objectionable 
devices,  which  prior  to  its  enactment  had  marked  the  proceedings 
of  every  senatorial  election  where  the  Legislature  was  almost  equally 
divided  between  political  parties.  The  reluctance  to  interfere  with 
the  supposed  or  asserted  rights  of  States  had  too  long  delayed  this 
needful  exercise  of  National  power.  The  Constitution  provides  that 
"  the  times,  places  and  manner  of  holding  elections  for  senators  and 
representatives  in  Congress  shall  be  prescribed  in  each  State  by  the 
Legislature  thereof ;  but  the  Congress  may,  at  any  time,  by  law,  make  or 
alter  such  regulations,  except  as  to  the  places  of  choosing  senators." 

There  was  a  reluctance  in  the  early  administration  of  the  Federal 
Government  to  assume  any  function  which  had  been  given  alterna- 
tively to  the  States.  It  thus  came  to  pass  that  many  methods  were 
developed  in  different  States  for  choosing  senators,  —  methods  that 
widely  differed  in  their  essential  characteristics.  Hence  there  was 
variety,  and  even  contrariety,  where  there  should  have  been  only 
unity  and  harmony.  These  divergent  practices  had  been  allowed  to 
develop  for  seventy-seven  years  of  the  nation's  life,  when,  admonished 
by  the  Stockton  case  of  the  latitudinary  results  to  which  loose  meth- 
ods might  lead,  Congress  took  jurisdiction  of  the  whole  subject.  The 
exercise  of  this  power  was  a  natural  result  of  the  situation  in  which 
the  nation  was  placed  by  the  war.  Previous  to  the  civil  conflict 
every  power  was  withheld  from  the  National  Government  which  could 
by  any  possibility  be  exercised  by  the  State  Government.  Another 
theory  and  another  practice  were  now  to  prevail;  for  it  had  been 
demonstrated  to  the  thoughtful  statesmen  who  then  controlled  the 
Government,  that  every  thing  which  may  be  done  by  either  Nation  or 
State  may  be  better  and  more  securely  done  by  the  Nation.  The 
change  of  view  was  important  and  led  to  far-reaching  consequences. 


Alexander  G.  Cattell  succeeded  Mr.  Stockton  and  served  in  the 
Senate  with  usefulness  and  high  credit  until  March  4,  1871.     He  had 


THE    NEW-JERSEY    SENATORSHIP.  101 

been  all  his  life  engaged  in  commercial  affairs,  but  had  taken  active 
part  in  politics  and  had  held  many  positions  of  trust  in  his  native 
State.  In  1844,  at  twenty-eight  years  of  age,  he  was  a  member  of  the 
Constitutional  Convention  of  New  Jersey  and  made  his  mark  in  its 
proceedings.  His  upright  character,  his  recognized  ability  and  his 
popular  manners  had  given  him  a  strong  hold  upon  the  people  of 
his  State. 

William  Wright,  the  colleague  of  Mr.  Stockton,  who  was  unable 
from  illness  to  vote  011  his  case,  died  the  ensuing  November  (1866) 
at  seventy-two  years  of  age.  He  served  two  terms  (1843-47)  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  from  the  Newark  district  as  a  Whig,  and 
was  a  zealous  supporter  of  Mr.  Clay  in  1844.  He  was  a  wealthy 
manufacturer,  largely  engaged  in  trade  with  the  South,  and  the 
agitation  of  the  slavery  question  became  distasteful  to  him.  In 
1850  he  united  with  the  Democratic  party  and  was  sent  to  the  Senate 
in  1853. 

Frederick  Theodore  Frelinghuysen  was  chosen  as  Mr.  Wright's 
successor.  He  was  in  his  fiftieth  year  when  he  entered  the  Senate, 
but  was  known  as  a  distinguished  member  of  the  New-Jersey  Bar 
and  had  served  as  Attorney-General  of  his  State.  His  grandfather, 
Frederick  Frelinghuysen,  was  a  member  of  the  Continental  Congress 
and  a  senator  during  Washington's  second  term.  His  uncle,  Theo- 
dore Frelinghuysen,  was  a  senator  during  the  first  term  of  Jackson 
and  ran  for  Vice-President  on  the  ticket  with  Mr.  Clay  in  1844. 
The  family  came  with  the  early  emigration  from  Holland  and  soon 
acquired  a  hold  upon  the  confidence  of  the  people  of  New  Jersey 
which  has  been  long  and  steadily  maintained.  —  Mr.  Frelinghuysen 
soon  attained  prominence  in  the  Senate,  and  grew  in  strength  and 
usefulness  throughout  his  service  in  that  body. 
VOL.  II.  11 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

THE  PRESIDENT  OFFENDED. — ADVERSE  VOTE  IN  CONGRESS  SURPRISES  HIM.  —  FREED- 
MEN'S  BUREAU  ESTABLISHED.  —  MAJOR-GENERAL  HOWARD  APPOINTED  COMMIS- 
SIONER. —  His  CHARACTER.  —  DEFICIENCY  OF  THE  BUREAU.  —  SUPPLEMENTARY  ACT. 
—  ITS  PROVISIONS.  —  CONFLICT  WITH  STATE  POWER.  —  LONG  DEBATE.  —  SPEECH 
OF  IGNATIUS  DONNELLY. —THE  PRESIDENT'S  VETO.  — SEVERE  ATTACK  UPON  THE 
POLICY.  —  EXPENSE  OF  THE  BUREAU.  —  SENATE  FAILS  TO  PASS  BILL  OVER  VETO.  — 
ANOTHER  BILL  TO  SAME  EFFECT  PASSED.  —  MORE  GUARDED  IN  ITS  PROVISIONS.— 
PRESIDENT  VETOES  THE  SECOND  BILL.  —  SENATE  AND  HOUSE  PASS  IT  OVER  THE 
VETO.  —  UNPOPULARITY  OF  THE  MEASURE.  —  SENATOR  TRUMBULL  INTRODUCES 
CIVIL  BIGHTS  BILL.  —  ITS  PROVISIONS.  —  RADICAL  IN  THEIR  EFFECT. —  SPEECH  OF 
REVERDY  JOHNSON. —DEBATE  IN  THE  HOUSE. —  PRESIDENT  VETOES  THE  BILL.— 
MAKES  ELABORATE  ARGUMENT  AGAINST  IT.  —  EXCITING  DEBATE  ON  VETO. —  MR. 
TRUMBULL'S  SPEECH.  —  SEVERE  REVIEW  OF  PRESIDENT'S  COURSE.  —  EXCITING 
SPEECH  OF  MR.  WADE.  —  ILLNESS  OF  MR.  WRIGHT.  —  SEVERE  REMARKS  OF  MB. 

MCDOUGAL   AND   MR     GUTHRIE.  —  DEBATE   IN   THE   HOUSE.  —  BOTH   BRANCHES   PAS» 

BILL  OVER  VETO.  —  RADICAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  MEASURE.  —  RELATIONS  OF  PRESI- 
DENT AND  CONGRESS.  —  OPENLY  HOSTILE.  —  POPULAR  MEETING  IN  WASHINGTON.  — 
PRESIDENT'S  ACTION  APPROVED.  —  PRESIDENT'S  SPEECH  22o  OF  FEBRUARY.  —  ITS 
UNDIGNIFIED  AND  VIOLENT  CHARACTER.  —  CALLS  MEN  BY  NAME.  —  UNFAVORABLE 
IMPRESSION  UPON  THE  COUNTRY.  —  THE  PRESIDENT  LOSING  GROUND.  —  REPUBLI- 
CANS IN  CONGRESS  ANXIOUS. —EXCITING  PERIOD.  —  SENATOR  LANE  OF  KANSAS.— 
His  POLITICAL  DEFECTION.— His  SUICIDE.  — PERSONAL  HISTORY. —  His  PUBLIC 
SERVICES.  —  SUICIDE  OF  PRESTON  KING.  —  SUPPOSED  REASONS  FOR  THE  ACT. 

WITH  the  disposition  manifested  in  both  Houses  of  Congress 
it  was  feared  that  the  conflict  between  the  Legislative  and 
Executive  Departments  of  the  Government  would  assume  a  virulent 
and  vindictive  spirit.  It  was  known  that  President  Johnson  was 
deeply  offended  by  the  indirect  refusal  of  the  House  to  pass  any 
resolution  in  the  remotest  degree  approving  his  course.  He  had 
doubtless  been  led  to  believe  that  the  influence  of  such  eminent 
Republicans  as  Mr.  Seward  in  his  Cabinet,  Mr.  Cowan  and  Mr.  Doo- 
little  in  the  Senate  and  Mr.  Raymond  in  the  House,  would  bring 
about  so  considerable  a  division  in  the  Republican  ranks  as  to  give 
the  Administration,  by  uniting  with  the  Democratic  party,  the  con- 
trol of  Congress,  or  at  least  of  one  branch.  The  test  vote  of  January 
9th  was  an  unwelcome  demonstration  of  the  degree  to  which  the  Presi- 

162 


BUREAU  OF  FREEDMEN  AND  REFUGEES.        163 

dent  had  almost  wilfully  deceived  himself  and  had  been  innocently 
deceived  by  others.  He  foresaw  the  struggle  and  with  his  com- 
bative nature  prepared  for  it. 

On  the  last  day  of  the  preceding  Congress,  March  3,  1865,  an 
Act  had  been  passed  to  establish  a  bureau  for  the  relief  of  freedmen 
and  refugees.  It  was  among  the  very  last  Acts  approved  by  Mr.  Lin- 
coln, and  was  primarily  designed  as  a  protection  to  the  freedmen  of 
the  South  and  to  the  class  of  white  men  known  as  "refugees,"  — 
driven  from  their  homes  by  the  rebels  on  account  of  their  loyalty  to 
the  Union.  Protection  was  needed  by  both  classes  during  the  dis- 
organization necessarily  incident  to  so  great  and  sudden  a  change  in 
their  condition  and  in  their  relations  to  society.  The  total  destruc- 
tion of  the  long-established  labor  system  of  the  South  —  based  as  it 
had  been  on  chattel-slavery  —  led  inevitably  to  great  confusion, 
indeed  almost  to  social  anarchy.  The  result  was  that  many  of  the 
freedmen,  removed  from  the  protection  of  their  old  masters,  were 
exposed  to  destitution  and  to  many  forms  of  suffering.  But  for  the 
interposition  of  the  National  Government  there  was  serious  danger 
that  thousands  of  them  might  be  reduced  to  starvation.  Having 
taken  the  responsibility  of  freeing  them,  first  by  Proclamation  of  the 
President  and  then  by  Amendment  of  the  Constitution,  it  would 
have  been  a  lasting  reproach  to  the  Government  not  to  extend 
protection  and  assistance  to  such  of  them  as  were  thrown  into  dire 
extremity  of  want.  They  could  not  be  left  to  the  chance  relief  of 
the  alms-giver,  for  their  number  was  too  large.  The  white  popula- 
tion of  the  South  were  themselves  reduced  almost  to  poverty  by  the 
long  struggle ;  and  even  if  they  had  been  able  they  were  in  no 
mood  to  extend  relief  to  negroes  who,  as  they  believed,  had  been 
wrongfully  released  from  slavery. 

The  Act  provided  that  the  Bureau  should  have  supervision  and 
management  of  all  abandoned  lands  and  control  of  all  subjects  re- 
lating to  freedmen  and  refugees  from  Rebel  States,  under  such  regu- 
lations as  might  be  prescribed  by  the  Commissioner  at  the  head  of  the 
Bureau  and  by  the  President.  The  Secretary  of  War  was  authorized 
"to  direct  such  issues  of  provisions,  clothing  and  fuel  as  he  may 
deem  needful  for  the  immediate  and  temporary  shelter  and  supply  of 
destitute  and  suffering  refugees  and  freedmen  and  their  wives  and 
children,  under  such  rules  and  regulations  as  he  may  approve."  The 
Commissioner  was  authorized  to  lease,  for  a  term  of  three  years,  to 
every  male  citizen,  whether  refugee  or  freedman,  not  more  than  forty 


164  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

acres  of  the  lands  which  had  been  abandoned  by  their  owners  01 
confiscated  to  the  United  States,  at  a  rental  of  six  per  cent  on  the* 
last  appraised  value.  At  the  end  of  three  years  the  occupant  was 
entitled  to  purchase  and  receive  the  land,  with  such  title  as  the' 
United  States  could  convey,  at  a  price  proportioned  to  the  rental 
value.  Very  little  permanent  advantage  came  to  the  negro  from 
this  provision;  for  the  abandoned  lands  were  legally  reclaimed  by 
their  owners  and  the  confiscations,  few  in  number,  could,  by  the1 
Constitution,  be  only  for  the  life  of  the  owner.  Temporary  reliei 
however  was  afforded ;  but  much  harm  was  done  by  creating  in  the1 
minds  of  ignorant  freedmen,  just  redeemed  from  slavery,  the  belief 
that  the  Government  would  give  to  each  of  them  "forty  acres  oi 
land  and  a  mule." 

The  Commissioner  selected  was  Major-General  Oliver  O.  How- 
ard, who  had  gone  through  the  war  with  marked  honor.  He  was  a 
lieutenant  of  ordnance  when  Sumter  was  fired  upon  and  a  brigadier- 
general  in  the  regular  army  three  years  later.  He  had  discharged 
his  military  duties  with  steadiness,  intelligence,  earnestness  and  cour- 
age. He  was  a  man  of  pure  character,  of  deep  religious  faith,  and 
was  somewhat  an  exception  to  West-Point  graduates  in  being  from 
the  outset  thoroughly  anti-slavery  in  his  intellectual  and  moral  con- 
victions, it  was  the  possession  of  these  characteristics  which  led 
Secretary  Stanton  to  select  General  Howard  for  the  important  trust, 
For  his  ease  and  his  peace  of  mind  he  should  have  declined  the  place- 
as  he  might  well  have  done,  since  it  was  not  a  military  duty  to 
accept.  During  his  administration  of  the  office  he  was  subjected 
to  unreasonable  fault-finding,  often  to  censure  and  obloquy;  but 
throughout  the  whole  he  bore  himself  with  the  honor  of  a  soldier 
and  the  purity  of  a  Christian,  —  triumphantly  sustaining  himself 
throughout  a  Congressional  investigation  set  on  foot  by  political 
malice,  and  confronting  with  equal  credit  a  military  inquiry  which 
had  its  origin  in  the  jealousy  that  is  often  the  bane  of  army  service. 

On  the  first  attempt  to  enforce  the  provisions  of  the  original  Act, 
its  advocates  and  sympathizers  found  that  it  did  not  go  far  enough, 
nor  give  power  enough  to  its  agents  to  effect  the  desired  object.  On1 
the  12th  of  January,  therefore,  Mr.  Trumbull  introduced  from  the 
Judiciary  Committee  a  supplementary  Act  to  enlarge  the  powers  of 
the  Freedmen's  Bureau.  By  the  new  bill  the  President  was  author- 
ized to  "  divide  the  section  of  country  containing  the  refugees  into 
districts,  not  exceeding  twelve  in  number,  each  containing  one  or  more 


BUREAU  OF  FREEDMEN  AND  REFUGEES.        165 

States,  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  to  appoint 
an  Assistant  Commissioner  for  each  district."  The  Bureau,  at  the 
discretion  of  the  President,  might  be  placed  under  a  Commissioner 
and  Assistant  Commissioners  to  be  detailed  from  the  Army.  Sub- 
districts,  not  to  exceed  the  number  of  counties  or  parishes  in  each 
State,  were  provided  for ;  and  to  each  sub-district  an  agent,  either  a 
citizen  or  officer  of  the  Army,  might  be  detailed  for  service.  Each 
Assistant  Commissioner  might  employ  not  more  than  six  clerks. 
The  President  of  the  United  States,  through  the  War  Department 
and  through  the  Commissioner,  was  authorized  to  extend  military 
jurisdiction  and  protection  over  all  employees,  agents  and  officers 
of  the  Bureau;  and  the  Secretary  of  War  was  authorized  to  issue 
such  provisions,  clothing,  fuel  and  other  supplies,  including  medical 
stores,  and  to  afford  such  aid,  as  he  might  deem  needful  for  the  im- 
mediate and  temporary  shelter  and  supply  of  destitute  refugees  and 
freedmen,  their  wives  and  children,  under  such  rules  and  regulations 
as  he  might  direct.  The  President  was  also  authorized  to  reserve 
from  sale  or  settlement  under  the  Homestead  and  Pre-emption  Laws, 
public  lands  in  Florida,  Mississippi  and  Arkansas,  not  to  exceed 
three  millions  of  acres  of  good  land  in  all,  for  the  use  of  the  freed- 
men, at  a  certain  rental  to  be  named  in  such  manner  as  the  Com- 
missioner should  by  regulation  prescribe  ;  or  the  Commissioner  could 
purchase  or  rent  such  tracts  of  land  in  the  several  districts  as  might 
be  necessary  to  provide  for  the  indigent  refugees  and  freedmen 
depending  upon  the  Government  for  support. 

It  was  further  provided  that  wherever  in  consequence  of  any 
.State  or  local  law  any  of  the  civil  rights  or  immunities  belonging  to 
white  persons,  such  as  the  right  to  enforce  contracts,  to  sue,  to  give 
evidence,  to  inherit,  purchase,  lease,  sell,  hold  or  convey  real  and 
personal  property,  were  refused  or  denied  to  freedmen  on  account  of 
race  or  color  or  any  previous  condition  of  slavery  or  involuntary 
servitude,  or  whenever  they  were  subjected  to  punishment  for  crime 
different  from  that  provided  for  white  persons,  it  was  made  the  duty 
of  the  President,  through  the  Commissioner,  to  extend  military  juris- 
diction and  protection  over  all  cases  affecting  persons  against  whom 
such  unjust  discriminations  were  made.  It  was  made  the  duty  of  the 
officers  and  agents  of  the  Bureau  to  take  jurisdiction  of  and  to  hear 
and  determine  all  cases,  in  which  by  local  law  discrimination  was 
made  against  the  freedmen.  This  was  to  be  done  under  such  rules 
and  regulations  as  the  President,  through  the  Commissioner,  might 


166  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

prescribe.  But  the  jurisdiction  was  to  cease  "whenever  the  dis- 
crimination on  account  of  which  it  is  conferred  shall  cease,"  and 
was  in  no  event  to  be  exercised  in  any  State  "in  which  the  ordi- 
nary course  of  judicial  proceeding  has  not  been  interrupted  by  the 
Rebellion,  nor  in  those  States  after  they  shall  have  been  fully  re- 
stored to  their  constitutional  relations  to  the  United  States,  and 
when  the  courts  of  the  State  and  of  the  United  States,  within  their 
limits,  are  not  disturbed  or  stopped  in  the  peaceable  course  of 
justice." 

In  a  time  of  peace  these  provisions  seemed  extraordinary,  but 
the  condition  of  affairs,  in  the  judgment  of  leading  Republican 
statesmen,  justified  their  enactment.  The  Thirteenth  Amendment, 
about  to  be  formally  promulgated  by  the  Executive  Department  of 
the  Government,  as  incorporated  in  the  Constitution,  had  made  every 
negro  a  free  man.  The  Southern  States  had  responded  to  this  Act 
of  National  authority  by  enacting  a  series  of  laws  which  really 
introduced,  as  has  already  been  shown,  a  new,  offensive  and  most 
oppressive  form  of  servitude.  Thus  not  only  was  rank  injustice  con- 
templated by  the  States  lately  in  rebellion,  but  they  conveyed  also 
an  insulting  challenge  to  the  authority  of  the  Nation.  It  was  as  if 
they  had  said  to  the  National  Government :  "  In  order  to  destroy  the 
Confederacy  and  restore  the  Union  you  have  manumitted  these  black 
men ;  but  we  will  demonstrate  to  you,  by  our  local  legislation,  that 
you  are  powerless  to  give  them  any  further  freedom  than  we  are 
willing  to  concede,  and  we  defy  you  to  show  by  what  means  you  can 
achieve  it ! " 

The  first  answer  of  the  National  Government  to  this  defiance 
was  Mr.  Trumbull's  bill  conferring  upon  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  a 
degree  of  power  which  combated  and  restrained  the  Southern  authori- 
ties at  every  point  where  wrong  was  committed  or  menaced.  It 
was  designed  for  the  purpose  of  extending  to  the  freedman  protection 
against  all  the  wrongs  of  local  legislation,  and  to  make  him  feel  that 
the  Government  which  had  freed  him  would  not  'desert  him  and 
allow  his  release  from  slavery  to  be  made  null  and  void.  Mr.  John- 
son's policy  of  declaring  all  the  States  at  once  restored  to  the  Union 
and  in  full  possession  of  their  powers  of  local  legislation,  would 
carry  with  it  necessarily  the  confirmation  of  the  odious  laws  already 
enacted  in  those  States,  and  also  the  power  to  make  them  as  stringent 
and  binding  upon  the  freedmen  as  the  discretion  of  Southern  legis- 
lators might  dictate.  The  war  would  thus  have  practically  injured 


BUREAU  OF  FREEDMEN  AND  REFUGEES.        167 

the  negro,  for  after  taking  from  him  that  form  of  protection  which 
slavery  afforded,  it  would  have  left  him  an  object  of  still  harsher 
oppression  than  slavery  itself  —  an  oppression  that  would  be  inspired 
and  quickened  by  a  spirit  of  vengeance. 

The  bill  was  debated  at  full  length,  nearly  every  prominent  man 
in  the  Senate  taking  part.  Mr.  Hendricks  of  Indiana  and  Mr.  Gar- 
rett  Davis  of  Kentucky  opposed  it  in  speeches  of  excessive  bitter- 
ness, and  Mr.  Guthrie  of  Kentucky  with  equal  earnestness  but  less 
passion.  It  was  sustained  with  great  ability  by  all  the  leading 
Republican  senators ;  and  on  the  final  passage,  in  an  unusually  full 
Senate,  the  vote  in  its  favor  was  37  ;  those  opposed  were  10.  There 
were  only  three  absentees.  Even  those  Republican  senators  who  had 
given  strong  evidence  of  sympathy  with  the  Administration  did  not 
unite  with  the  Democrats  on  this  issue.  Mr.  Cowan  declined  to  vote, 
while  Messrs.  Dixon,  Doolittle  and  Norton  voted  in  the  affirmative. 
The  public  opinion  of  the  country  unmistakably  sustained  this  legis- 
lation—  the  purpose  to  extend  protection  to  the  freedmen  being 
deep-set  and  all-pervading  among  the  men  of  the  North  who  had 
triumphed  in  the  war.  When  the  bill  reached  the  House  it  was 
referred  to  the  Select  Committee  on  Freedmen's  Affairs,  of  which 
Mr.  Thomas  D.  Eliot  of  Massachusetts  was  chairman.  It  was 
promptly  reported  and  came  to  a  final  vote  on  the  6th  of  February, 
when  it  was  passed  on  a  call  of  yeas  and  nays  by  136  to  33.  It 
was  a  clear  division  upon  the  line  of  party,  the  nays  being  com- 
posed entirely  of  Democrats,  with  the  possible  exception  of  Mr. 
Rousseau  of  Kentucky,  who  had  been  elected  with  the  aid  of  Repub- 
lican votes. 

One  of  the  most  striking  speeches  made  in  the  House  upon  the 
subject  was  by  Mr.  Ignatius  Donnelly  of  Minnesota.  He  had  care- 
fully prepared  for  the  debate  and  dwelt  with  great  force  upon  the 
educational  feature.  "  Education,"  said  he,  "  means  the  intelligent 
exercise  of  liberty;  and  surely  without  this  liberty  is  a  calamity, 
since  it  means  simply  the  unlimited  right  to  err.  Who  can  doubt 
that  if  a  man  is  to  govern  himself  he  should  have  the  means  to 
know  what  is  best  for  himself,  and  what  is  injurious  to  himself, 
what  agencies  work  against  him  and  what  for  him  ?  The  avenue  to 
all  this  is  simply  education.  Suffrage  without  education  is  an  edged 
tool  in  the  hands  of  a  child,  —  dangerous  to  others  and  destructive 
to  himself.  Now  what  is  the  condition  of  the  South  in  reference  to 
all  this  ?  I  assert  that  it  is  such  as  would  bring  disgrace  upon  any 


168  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

despotism  in  Christendom.  The  great  bulk  of  the  people  are  rude, 
illiterate,  semi-civilized :  hence  the  Rebellion  ;  hence  all  the  atrocious 
barbarities  that  accompanied  it.  ...  I  repeat,  the  condition  of  the 
South  in  this  respect  would  be  shameful  to  any  semi-civilized  people, 
and  is  such  as  to  render  a  republican  government,  resting  upon  the 
intelligent  judgment  of  the  people,  an  impossibility." 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  question  so  cogently  presented 
and  enforced  by  Mr.  Donnelly  —  that  of  the  connection  between 
education  and  suffrage  —  disclosed  the  general  fact  that  even  among 
Republicans  there  was  no  disposition  at  this  period  to  confer  upon 
the  negro  the  right  to  vote.  Even  so  radical  a  Republican  as  Mr. 
Fessenden,  during  the  debate  in  the  Senate  on  this  question,  said,  "  I 
take  it  that  no  one  contends  — '  I  think  the  Honorable  Senator  from 
Massachusetts  himself  (Mr.  Sumner),  who  is  the  great  champion  of 
universal  suffrage,  would  hardly  contend  —  that  now,  at  this  time, 
the  whole  of  the  population  of  the  recent  slave  States  is  fit  to  be 
admitted  to  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  suffrage.  I  presume  no  man 
who  looks  at  the  question  dispassionately  and  calmly  could  contend 
that  the  great  mass  of  those  who  were-  recently  slaves  (undoubtedly 
there  may  be  exceptions),  and  who  have  been  kept  in  ignorance  all 
their  lives,  oppressed  and  more  or  less  forbidden  to  acquire  informa- 
tion, are  fitted  at  this  stage  to  exercise  the  right  of  suffrage,  or  could 
be  trusted  to  do  it  unless  under  such  good  advice  as  those  better 
informed  might  be  prepared  to  give  them." 

The  bill,  as  finally  passed  by  both  Houses,  reached  the  President 
on  the  10th  of  February.  On  the  19th  he  sent  a  message  to  Con- 
gress informing  each  House  that,  having  with  much  regret  come  to 
the  conclusion  that  it  would  not  be  consistent  with  the  public  wel- 
fare to  give  his  approval  to  the  measure,  he  returned  the  bill  to  the 
Senate,  stating  his  objections  to  its  becoming  a  law.  The  main  argu- 
ment of  the  President  was  based  upon  the  principle  that  legislation 
such  as  that  contained  in  the  bill  was  not  proper  for  States  that  were 
deprived  of  their  right  of  representation  in  both  branches  of  Con- 
gress. "The  Constitution,"  he  said,  "imperatively  declares,  in 
connection  with  taxation,  that  each  State  shall  have  at  least  one 
representative,  and  fixes  the  rule  for  the  number  to  which  in  future 
times  each  State  shall  be  entitled.  It  also  provides  that  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States  shall  be  composed  of  two  senators  from  each 
State,  and  adds  with  peculiar  force  that  no  State,  without  its  con- 
sent, shall  be  deprived  of  its  equal  suffrage  in  the  Senate.  .  .  . 


BUREAU  OF  FREEDMEN  AND  REFUGEES.       169 

Burdens  have  now  to  be  borne  by  all  the  country,  and  we  may  best 
deem  that  they  shall  be  borne  without  murmur  when  they  are  voted 
by  a  majority  of  the  representatives  of  all  the  people.  ...  At  pres- 
ent all  the  representatives  of  eleven  States  are  excluded,  those 
who  were  most  faithful  during  the  war  not  less  than  others.  The 
State  of  Tennessee,  for  instance,  whose  authorities  were  engaged  in 
rebellion,  was  restored  to  all  her  Constitutional  relations  to  the 
Union  by  the  patriotism  and  energy  of  her  patriot  people.  I  know 
no  reason  why  the  State  of  Tennessee  should  not  fully  enjoy  all  her 
Constitutional  relations.  .  .  .  The  bill  under  consideration  refers  to 
certain  of  the  States  as  though  they  had  not  been  fully  restored  in 
all  their  Constitutional  relations  to  the  United  States.  If  they  have 
not  let  us  at  once  act  together  to  secure  that  desirable  end  at  the 
earliest  possible  moment.  In  my  judgment  most  of  these  States,  so 
far  at  least  as  depends  upon  their  own  acts,  have  already  been  fully 
restored  and  should  be  deemed  as  entitled  to  enjoy  their  Constitu- 
tional rights  as  members  of  the  Union." 

He  reviewed  at  some  length  the  minor  provisions  of  the  bill, 
objected  to  them  as  unwarrantably  interfering  with  the  local  admin- 
istration of  justice,  and  declared  that  a  system  for  the  support  of 
indigent  persons  in  the  United  States  was  never  contemplated  by 
the  authors  of  the  Constitution.  "  Nor  can  any  good  reason  be  ad- 
vanced," said  the  President,  "  why  as  a  permanent  establishment  it 
should  be  founded  for  one  class  or  color  of  our  people  more  than 
another."  He  objected  to  it  on  the  ground  of  its  expense.  "  The 
appropriations  asked  for  by  the  Freedmen's  Bureau,  as  already  estab- 
lished, for  the  current  year,  amount,"  he  said,  "  to  $11,745,000  ;  and 
it  may  be  safely  estimated  that  the  cost  to  be  incurred  under  the 
pending  bill  will  require  double  that  amount,  —  more  than  any  sum 
expended  in  any  one  year  of  the  Administration  of  John  Quincy 
Adams." 

The  argument  of  the  message  based  on  expense  and  extravagance 
was  much  applauded  by  the  opponents  of  the  Republican  party,  and 
there  was  great  expectation  that  it  would  create  a  strong  re-action  in 
favor  of  the  President ;  but  those  who  thus  reckoned  utterly  failed 
to  appreciate  the  temper  of  the  public  mind.  The  disbursement  of 
vast  sums  in  the  war  had  accustomed  the  people  to  large  appropria- 
tions of  money,  and  the  pecuniary  aspect  of  the  case,  upon  which  the 
President  had  much  relied,  made  far  less  impression  than  he  antici- 
pated. The  philanthropists  did  not  deem  the  question  at  issue  to  be 


1TO  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

one  of  dollars  and  cents ;  and  those  less  disposed  to  sympathize  with 
the  humanitarian  aspects  of  the  subject  had  not  yet  learned  the 
lesson  of  economy  which  the  adversity  of  after  years  taught  them. 
The  great  expansion  of  our  currency,  the  ease  with  which  money 
had  been  obtained,  and  the  extravagance  with  which  it  had  been 
expended  in  all  the  walks  of  life,  produced  in  the  minds  of  the  people 
an  indifference  to  the  question  of  economy.  The  President,  in  his 
own  long  career,  had  exercised  a  rigid  watchfulness  over  the  dis- 
bursements of  public  money,  and  he  did  not  fully  realize  the  great 
change  which  had  been  wrought  in  the  people  —  a  change  sure  to 
follow  the  condition  of  war  if  historic  precedents  may  be  trusted  — 
a  change  in  which  economy  gives  way  to  lavishness  and  careful  cir- 
cumspection is  followed  by  loose  disregard  of  established  rules.  It 
is  a  condition  not  implying  dishonesty  or  even  recklessness,  but  one 
which  follows  from  a  positive  inability  in  the  public  mind  to  estimate 
the  expenditure  of  money  by  the  standards  which  are  applied  in  the 
era  of  peaceful  industry,  careful  supervision  and  prudent  restraint. 

The  Senate  voted  upon  the  veto  the  day  after  it  was  received. 
Greatly  to  the  surprise  of  the  public  the  dominant  party  was  unable 
to  pass  the  bill  against  the  objections  of  the  President.  Messrs. 
Dixon,  Doolittle,  Morgan,  Norton  and  Van  Winkle  had  voted  for  it, 
but  now  changed  their  votes  and  thereby  reversed  the  action  of  the 
Senate.  These  senators,  with  the  addition  of  Nesmith  and  Willey, 
who  did  not  vote  on  the  passage  of  the  bill,  gave  the  final  count  of 
30  in  favor  of  the  passage  to  18  against  —  lacking  the  two-thirds 
and  therefore  failing  to  pass  the  bill.  The  result  was  wholly  un- 
looked  for  and  the  vote  of  Governor  Morgan  of  New  York  gave 
great  uneasiness  to  his  political  associates.  It  was  for  a  time 
believed  that  under  the  persuasive  influence  of  Mr.  Seward,  with 
whom  he  had  long  been  on  terms  of  close  intimacy,  Mr.  Morgan 
might  be  intending  to  join  the  Administration  party.  The  same  was 
thought  possible  with  regard  to  Mr.  Van  Winkle  of  West  Virginia, 
his  location  suggesting  the  possibility  of  such  a  change.  The  ex- 
citement among  Republicans  was  great  for  a  time,  because  if  they 
should  so  far  lose  control  of  either  branch  of  Congress  as  to  be 
unable  to  override  the  vetoes  of  the  President,  all  attempts  to  enforce 
a  more  radical  policy  of  Reconstruction  than  Mr.  Johnson  could  be 
induced  to  approve  would  necessarily  be  futile.  It  was  soon  ascer- 
tained however,  that  the  apprehension  of  danger  was  unfounded, 
and  that  Messrs.  Morgan  and  Van  Winkle  did  not  design  any  change 


BUREAU  OF  FREEDMEN  AND  REFUGEES.        171 

of  political  relations,  but  were  only  more  cautious  and  perhaps  wiser 
than  the  other  Republican  senators. 

A  few  weeks  later,  the  disaster  of  the  veto  —  for  such  it  was 
esteemed  by  Republicans  —  was  repaired  by  the  passage  of  another 
bill,  originating  in  the  House.  This  was  simply  a  bill  to  continue  in 
force  the  original  Freedmen's  Bureau  Act,  with  some  enlarging  pro- 
visions to  make  it  more  effective.  The  Act  was  so  framed  as  to 
escape  the  objections  which  had  controlled  some  of  the  Republican 
votes  that  sustained  the  President's  veto.  Among  the  most  impor- 
tant of  the  changes  were  the  limitation  of  the  statute  to  the  term  of 
two  years  and  a  serious  modification  of  the  judicial  powers  accorded 
to  the  officers  of  the  Bureau  in  the  preceding  bill.  It  was  not  so 
elaborately  debated  in  either  branch  as  was  the  original  act,  but  its 
passage  was  retarded  by  the  interposition  of  other  measures  and  it 
did  not  reach  the  President  until  the  first  week  in  July. 

The  President  promptly  returned  the  bill  to  the  House  with  his 
veto.  He  found  it  to  fall  within  the  objections  which  he  had  assigned 
in  his  message  vetoing  the  Senate  bill  on  the  same  subject.  He 
believed  that  the  only  ground  upon  which  this  kind  of  legislation 
could  be  justified  was  that  of  the  war-making  power.  He  admitted 
therefore  that  the  original  Act  organizing  a  Freedmen's  Bureau, 
passed  during  the  existence  of  the  war,  was  proper  and  Constitu- 
tional. By  its  own  terms  it  would  end  within  one  year  from  the 
cessation  of  hostilities  and  the  declaration  of  peace.  It  would  proba- 
bly continue  in  force,  he  thought,  as  long  as  the  freedmen  might 
require  the  benefit  of  its  provisions.  "It  will  certainly,"  said  he, 
"  remain  in  operation  as  a  law  until  some  months  subsequent  to  the 
meeting  of  the  next  session  of  Congress,  when,  if  experience  shall 
make  evident  the  necessity  of  additional  legislation,  the  two  Houses 
will  have  ample  time  to  mature  and  pass  the  requisite  measures." 
The  President  renewed  in  varied  forms  the  expression  of  his  belief 
that  all  the  States  should  be  admitted  to  the  privilege  of  legislation, 
especially  in  matters  affecting  their  own  welfare.  The  House  pro- 
ceeded at  once  to  vote  upon  the  reconsideration  of  the  bill,  and  by 
104  in  the  affirmative  and  33  in  the  negative  passed  it  over  the  veto 
of  the  President.  The  Senate  voted  on  the  same  day  with  the  House, 
and  passed  it  against  the  President's  objections  by  33  in  the  affirma- 
tive and  12  in  the  negative.  A  measure  of  very  great  importance  to 
the  colored  race  was  thus  completed,  after  serious  agitation  in  both 
Houses  and  against  two  vetoes  by  the  President.  It  required  potent 


172  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

persuasion,  re-enforced  by  the  severest  exercise  of  party  discipline, 
to  prevent  a  serious  break  in  both  Houses  against  the  bill.  The 
measure  had  lost,  under  discussion,  much  of  the  popularity  which 
attended  its  first  introduction  in  Congress. 

On  the  same  day  that  Mr.  Trumbull  introduced  his  original  bill 
to  enlarge  the  powers  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau,  he  introduced 
another  bill,  more  important  in  its  scope  and  more  enduring  in  its 
character,  —  a  bill  "  to  protect  all  persons  of  the  United  States  in 
their  civil  rights  and  furnish  the  means  of  their  vindication."  It 
was  referred  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  on  the  5th  day  of  January 
and  was  reported  back  on  the  llth.  The  bill  was  one  which  exem- 
plified in  a  most  striking  manner  the  revolution  produced  by  the  war. 
It  declared  that  "  there  shall  be  no  discrimination  in  civil  rights  or 
immunities  among  the  inhabitants  of  any  State  or  Territory  of  the 
United  States,  on  account  of  race,  color  or  previous  condition  of 
servitude ;  but  the  inhabitants  of  every  race  and  color  shall  have  the 
same  right  to  make  and  enforce  contracts,  to  sue,  be  parties,  give 
evidence,  to  inherit,  purchase,  lease,  sell,  hold  and  convey  real  and 
personal  property,  and  to  full  and  equal  benefits  of  all  laws  and  pro- 
visions for  the  security  of  personal  property ;  and  shall  be  subject  to 
like  punishment,  fines  and  penalties,  and  none  other,  —  any  law, 
statute,  ordinance,  regulation  or  custom  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing." 

Any  person  who  under  any  law,  statute  or  regulation  of  any 
kind  should  attempt  to  violate  the  provisions  of  the  Act,  would  be 
punished  by  a  fine  not  exceeding  one  thousand  dollars  or  by  im- 
prisonment not  exceeding  one  year.  Very  stringent  provisions 
were  made,  and  a  whole  framework  of  administration  devised,  by 
which  the  rights  conferred  under  this  enactment  could  be  enforced 
through  "  the  judicial  power  of  the  United  States."  The  district 
attorneys,  marshals,  deputy  marshals  of  the  United  States,  the  com- 
missioners appointed  by  the  Circuit  and  Territorial  Courts  of  the 
United  States,  the  officers  and  agents  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau,  and 
every  other  officer  who  was  sufficiently  empowered  by  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  were,  by  the  Act,  specially  authorized  and  re- 
quired, at  the  expense  of  the  United  States,  to  institute  proceedings 
against  every  person  who  should  violate  its  provisions,  and  "  cause 
him  or  them  to  be  arrested  and  imprisoned  for  trial  at  such  court  of 
the  United  States  or  Territorial  court  as,  by  the  Act,  has  cogni- 
zance of  the  case."  Any  person  who  should  obstruct  or  hinder  an 


THE  CIVIL  RIGHTS  BILL.  173 

officer  in  the  performance  of  his  duty  or  any  person  lawfully  assist- 
ing him  in  the  arrest  of  an  offender,  or  who  should  attempt  to  res- 
cue any  person  from  the  custody  of  an  officer,  was  in  turn  subjected 
to  severe  penalties. 

The  bill  was  designed,  in  short,  to  confer  upon  the  manumitted 
negro  of  the  South  the  same  civil  rights  enjoyed  by  the  white  man, 
with  the  exception  of  the  right  of  suffrage  ;  to  give  him  perfect 
equality  in  all  things  before  the  law,  and  to  nullify  every  State  law, 
wherever  existing,  that  should  be  in  conflict  with  the  enlarged  pro- 
visions of  the  Federal  statute.  It  left  no  loophole  for  escape  on  the 
question  of  the  citizenship  of  the  negro.  As  the  decisions  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  then  stood  he  was  not  a  citizen 
of  the  United  States ;  and  to  prevent  this  question  being  raised  the 
word  inhabitant  was  used,  —  thus  making  the  conferment  of  civil 
rights  so  broad  that  it  was  impossible  to  defeat  the  full  intent  of  the 
law  by  any  technical  evasion.  It  was  undoubtedly  a  very  sweeping 
enactment,  the  operation  of  which  was  not  confined  to  the  States 
which  had  been  slave-holding,  but  bore  directly  upon  some  of  the 
free  States  where  the  negro  had  always  been  deprived  of  certain 
rights  fully  guaranteed  to  the  white  man. 

Lest  "  inhabitant  "  might  be  held  to  mean  "  citizen  "  in  the  con- 
nection in  which  it  was  used  Mr.  Trumbull  proposed,  at  the  initial 
point  of  the  discussion,  to  amend  by  inserting  the  declaration  that 
"  all  persons  born  in  the  United  States  and  not  subject  to  any  for- 
eign power  are  hereby  declared  to  be  citizens  of  the  United  States 
without  distinction  of  color."  Mr.  Guthrie  of  Kentucky  and  Mr. 
Howard  of  Michigan  both  asked  whether  that  would  naturalize  all 
the  Indians  in  the  United  States.  Mr.  Trumbull  thought  not,  be- 
cause "we  deal  with  the  Indians  as  foreigners — as  separate  nations;" 
but  he  was  willing  to  change  it  so  as  specifically  to  exclude  Indians. 
Mr.  Cowan  asked  "  whether  the  amendment  would  not  have  the 
effect  of  naturalizing  children  of  Chinese  and  gypsies  born  in  this 
country."  Mr.  Trumbull  replied  that  it  undoubtedly  would.  Mr. 
Cowan  then  thought  it  would  be  proper  to  hear  the  senators  from 
California  on  that  question,  because  "  at  the  present  rate  of  emigra- 
tion the  day  may  not  be  very  distant  when  California,  instead  of 
belonging  to  the  Indo-European  race,  may  belong  to  the  Mongolians, 
may  belong  to  the  Chinese."  Mr.  Trumbull  inquired  if  the  children 
of  Chinese  born  in  this  country  were  not  citizens?  Mr.  Cowan 
thought  they  were  not. 


174  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Mr.  Reverdy  Johnson  of  Maryland  pointed  out  a  difficulty  not 
anticipated  by  Mr.  Trumbull.  By  using  the  word  inhabitant  in  the 
bill  he  made  it  impossible  for  any  State  in  the  Union  to  "  draw  any 
distinction  between  citizens  who  have  been  there  from  birth,  or  have 
been  residents  for  a  long  time,  and  him  who  comes  into  the  State  now 
for  the  first  time  as  a  foreigner.  He  becomes  at  once  an  inhabitant. 
If  he  comes  from  England  or  from  any  of  the  countries  of  the  world 
he  becomes  that  moment  an  inhabitant ;  and  if  this  bill  is  to  pass 
in  the  shape  it  stands  he  can  buy,  he  can  sell,  he  can  hold,  he  can 
inherit  and  be  inherited  from  and  possess  all  the  rights  of  a  native- 
born  citizen,"  without  being  naturalized.  Mr.  Johnson  pointed  out 
another  difficulty  which  perhaps  the  senator  from  Illinois  did  not 
foresee.  Many  of  the  States  in  the  North  as  well  as  in  the  South 
forbade  the  marriage  of  a  black  man  with  a  white  woman  or  a  white 
man  with  a  black  woman.  This  law  would  destroy  all  State  power 
over  the  subject ;  and  the  man  who  offended  in  the  matter  of  mar- 
riage between  the  races,  so  far  from  being  punklied  himself,  could 
bring  the  judge  who  attempted  to  enforce  the  law  against  him  into 
punishment.  The  bill,  after  much  elaboration  of  debate  and  many 
amendments  offered  and  defeated,  came  to  a  vote  on  the  2d  of  Feb- 
ruary and  was  passed  by  33  yeas  to  12  nays.  Mr.  Dixon  of  Connecti- 
cut, one  of  the  Administration  Republicans,  voted  for  the  bill ;  Mr. 
Cowan  and  Mr.  Norton  against  it :  Mr.  Doolittle  did  not  vote. 

The  bill  immediately  went  to  the  House,  and  on  the  1st  of 
March  that  body  proceeded  to  consider  it  without  its  reference  to 
the  Judiciary  Committee.  Mr.  Wilson  of  Iowa,  chairman  of  that 
committee,  said  they  had  considered  it  informally,  and  in  order  to 
save  time  it  was  brought  up  for  action  at  once.  The  first  amend- 
ment offered  was  to  strike  out  "  inhabitants  "  and  insert  "  citizens 
of  the  United  States,"  and  thus  avoid  the  embarrassments  that  might 
result  from  giving  it  so  broad  an  extension.  The  amendment  was 
promptly  agreed  to.  Mr.  Wilson,  by  another  amendment^  removed 
the  difficulties  suggested  in  the  Senate  by  Reverdy  Johnson,  touch- 
ing the  question  of  marriage  between  the  races.  He  supported  the 
bill  in  a  speech  of  great  strength  and  legal  research.  He  admitted 
at  the  outset  that  "  some  of  the  questions  presented  by  the  measure 
are  not  entirely  free  from  defects.  Precedents,  both  judicial  and 
legislative,  are  found  in  sharp  conflict  concerning  them.  The  line 
which  divides  these  precedents  is  generally  found  to  be  the  same 
which  separates  the  early  from  the  later  days  of  the  Republic.  The 


PRESIDENT  VETOES  THE  CIVIL  RIGHTS  BILL.  175 

farther  the  Republic  drifted  from  the  old  moorings  of  the  equality 
of  human  rights,  the  more  numerous  became  the  judicial  and  legis- 
lative utterances  in  conflict  with  some  of  the  leading  features  sought 
to  be  re-established  by  this  bill." 

The  debate  was  continued  by  Mr.  Rogers  of  New  Jersey,  in  the 
opposition,  by  Mr.  Russell  Thayer  of  Pennsylvania,  who  made  an 
uncommonly  able  speech  in  its  favor,  and  by  Mr.  Eldridge  of  Wis- 
consin, who  tersely  presented  the  objections  entertained  by  the  Dem- 
ocratic party  to  such  legislation.  There  were  some  apprehensions 
in  the  minds  of  members  on  both  sides  of  the  House  that  the  broad 
character  of  the  bill  might  include  the  right  of  suffrage,  but  to  pre- 
vent that  result  Mr.  Wilson  moved  to  add  a  new  section  declaring 
that  "  nothing  in  this  Act  shall  be  so  construed  as  to  affect  the  laws 
of  any  State  concerning  the  right  of  suffrage."  Mr.  Wilson  said  that 
the  amendment  he  proposed  did  not  change  his  own  construction  of 
the  bill ;  he  did  not  believe  the  term  "  civil  rights  "  included  the  right 
of  suffrage ;  he  offered  it  simply  from  excessive  caution,  because  cer- 
tain gentlemen  feared  trouble  might  arise  from  the  language  of  the 
bill.  The  amendment  was  unanimously  agreed  to,  not  one  voice  on 
either  side  of  the  House  being  raised  against  it.  Mr.  Bingham,  Mr. 
Raymond  and  other  prominent  members  of  the  House,  to  the  num- 
ber of  forty  in  all,  debated  the  bill  exhaustively.  It  was  passed  by 
111  yeas  to  38  nays. 

The  bill  reached  the  President  on  the  18th  of  March  (1866), 
and  on  the  27th  he  sent  to  the  Senate  a  message  regretting  that  it 
contained  provisions  which  he  could  not  approve.  "  I  am  therefore 
constrained,"  he  said,  "  to  return  it  to  the  Senate,  in  which  it  origi- 
nated, with  my  objections  to  its  becoming  a  law."  The  President 
stated  that  by  the  first  section  the  Chinese  of  the  Pacific  States, 
Indians  subject  to  taxation,  the  people  called  gypsies,  as  well  as  the 
entire  race  designated  as  black, — people  of  color,  negroes,  mulattoes, 
and  persons  of  African  blood,  —  "  are  made  citizens  of  the  United 
States."  The  President  did  not  believe  that  this  class  possessed 
"the  requisite  qualifications  to  entitle  them  to  all  the  privileges 
and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States."  He  sought  to 
raise  prejudice  against  the  bill  because  it  proposed  "  to  discriminate 
against  large  numbers  of  intelligent,  worthy  and  patriotic  foreigners, 
in  favor  of  the  negro,  to  whom,  after  long  years  of  bondage,  the  ave- 
nues to  freedom  and  intelligence  have  now  been  suddenly  opened." 
"  It  is  proposed,"  he  said,  "  by  a  single  legislative  enactment  to 


176  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

confer  the  rights  of  citizens  upon  all  persons  of  African  descent  born 
within  the  extended  limits  of  the  United  States,  while  persons  of 
foreign  birth  who  make  our  land  their  home  must  undergo  a 
probation  of  five  years,  and  can  then  only  become  citizens  of  the 
United  States  upon  the  proof  that  they  are  of  good  moral  character, 
attached  to  the  principles  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  well  disposed  towards  the  good  order  and  happiness  of  the 
same." 

The  President  sought  to  impress  upon  Congress,  in  strong  lan- 
guage, the  injustice  of  advancing  four  millions  of  colored  persons  to 
citizenship  "  while  the  States  in  which  most  of  them  reside  are  de- 
barred from  any  participancy  in  the  legislation."  He  found  many 
provisions  of  the  bill  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  as  it  had  been  hitherto  construed,  and  argued  elaborately 
against  its  expediency  or  necessity  in  any  form.  "  The  white  race 
and  the  black  race,"  said  the  President,  "  have  hitherto  lived  in  the 
South  in  the  relation  of  master  and  slave,  —  capital  owning  labor. 
Now  suddenly  the  relation  is  changed  and  as  to  the  ownership, 
capital  and  labor  are  divorced.  In  this  new  relation,  one  being 
necessary  to  the  other,  there  will  be  a  new  adjustment,  which  both 
are  deeply  interested  in  making  harmonious.  .  .  .  This  bill  frus- 
trates this  adjustment.  It  intervenes  between  capital  and  labor  and 
attempts  to  settle  questions  of  political  economy  through  the  agency 
of  numerous  officials,  whose  interest  it  will  be  to  foment  discord 
between  the  two  races,  for  as  the  breach  widens  their  employment 
will  continue  and  when  the  breach  is  closed  their  occupation  will 
terminate.'' 

"  The  details  of  this  bill,"  continued  the  President,  "  establish  for 
the  security  of  the  colored  race  safeguards  which  go  infinitely  beyond 
any  that  the  General  Government  has  ever  provided  for  the  white 
race ;  in  fact,  the  distinction  between  white  and  colored  is  by  the 
provisions  of  this  bill  made  to  operate  in  favor  of  the -colored  and 
against  the  white  race."  "The  provisions  of  the  bill,"  he  main- 
tained, "  are  an  absorption  and  assumption  of  power  by  the  General 
Government,  which,  being  acquiesced  in,  must  eventually  destroy 
our  federative  system  of  limited  power  and  break  down  the  barriers 
which  preserve  the  rights  of  States.  It  is  another  step,  or  rather 
stride,  towards  centralization  and  the  concentration  of  all  legislative 
power  in  the  General  Government.  The  tendency  of  the  bill  must 
be  to  resuscitate  rebellion  and  to  arrest  the  progress  of  these  influ- 


DEBATE  UPON  THE  PRESIDENT'S  VETO.  177 

ences  which  are  more  closely  thrown  around  the  States  —  the  bond 
of  union  and  peace." 

The  debate  upon  the  President's  veto  was  not  very  prolonged 
but  was  marked  by  excitement  approaching  to  anger.  Mr.  Trum- 
bull,  who  had  charge  of  the  bill,  analyzed  the  President's  argument 
with  consummate  ability  and  readily  answered  him  on  every  point  of 
Constitutional  law  which  he  had  adduced.  He  did  more  than  this. 
He  pointed  out  with  unflinching  severity  what  he  considered  the 
demagogical  features  of  the  message.  "  The  best  answer,"  said  Mr. 
Trumbull,  "to  the  President's  objection  that  the  bill  proposes  to 
make  citizens  of  Chinese  and  gypsies  and  his  reference  to  the  dis- 
crimination against  foreigners,  is  to  be  found  in  a  speech  delivered 
in  this  body  by  the  President  himself,  on  the  occasion  of  a  message 
being  sent  to  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Buchanan,  then  President  of  the 
United  States,  returning  with  his  objections  what  was  known  as 
the  Homestead  Bill.  On  that  occasion  Senator  Johnson  of  Tennessee 
said,  4  This  idea  about  poor  foreigners  somehow  or  other  bewilders 
and  haunts  the  imagination  of  a  great  many.  I  am  constrained  to 
say  that  I  look  upon  this  objection  to  the  bill  as  a  mere  quibble  on 
the  part  of  the  President,  as  being  hard  pressed  for  some  excuse  in 
withholding  his  approval  of  the  measure.  His  allusion  to  foreigners 
in  this  connection  looks  to  me  more  like  the  ad  captandum  of  the 
mere  politician  or  demagogue,  than  a  grave  and  sound  reason  to  be 
offered  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  in  a  veto  message  on 
so  important  a  measure  as  the  Homestead  Bill.' " 

In  exposing  the  inconsistency  between  Andrew  Johnson,  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  and  Andrew  Johnson,  Senator  from  Ten- 
nessee, Mr.  Trumbull  said  that  he  would  not  use  as  harsh  language  as 
Mr.  Johnson  had  used  towards  President  Buchanan  when  he  accused 
him  of  "quibbling  and  demagogery."  Mr.  Trumbull  argued  with 
great  force  that  the  citizen  has  a  counter-claim  upon  the  Government 
for  the  comprehensive  claim  which  the  Government  has  upon  the 
citizen.  "  It  cannot  be  that  we  have  constituted  a  government,"  said 
Mr.  Trumbull,  "which  is  all-powerful  to  command  the  obedience  of 
the  citizen  but  has  no  power  to  afford  him  protection."  "Tell  it 
not,  sir,"  said  he,  "  to  the  father  whose  son  was  starved  at  Ander- 
sonville,  or  the  widow  whose  husband  was  slain  at  Mission  Ridge,  or 
the  little  boy  who  leads  his  sightless  father  through  the  streets  of 
your  city,  or  the  thousand  other  mangled  heroes  to  be  seen  on  every 
side  of  us  to-day,  that  this  Government,  in  defense  of  which  the  son 
VOL.  II.  12 


178  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

and  the  husband  fell,  the  father  lost  his  sight  and  the  others  were 
maimed  and  crippled,  had  the  right  to  call  these  persons  to  its  de- 
fense, but  now  has  no  power  to  protect  the  survivors  or  their  friends 
in  any  rights  whatever  in  the  States.  Such,  sir,  is  not  the  meaning 
of  our  Constitution  :  such  is  not  the  meaning  of  American  citizenship. 
Allegiance  and  protection  are  reciprocal  rights." 

During  the  progress  of  the  debate  a  curious  incident  showed  the 
temper  engendered  in  the  Senate.  Mr.  Trumbull,  on  the  5th  of 
April,  intimated  his  readiness  to  have  the  vote  taken  if  the  Senate  was 
ready.  It  was  late  in  the  evening.  Mr.  Cowan  interposed  the 
suggestion  that  two  senators  detained  at  home  by  illness,  Mr.  Dixon 
of  Connecticut  and  Mr.  Wright  of  New  Jersey,  could  not  with  safety 
come  out  at  night.  The  point  of  courtesy  was  strongly  insisted 
upon  by  Mr.  Guthrie,  Mr.  Hendricks  and  other  members.  Mr. 
Wade  spoke  very  excitedly  in  reply  to  it.  "If  the  President  of  the 
United  States,"  said  he,  "  can  impose  his  authority  upon  a  question 
like  this  and  can  by  a  veto  compel  Congress  to  submit  to  his  dic- 
tation, he  is  an  emperor  and  a  despot.  Because  I  believe  the  great 
question  of  Congressional  power  and  authority  is  at  stake  here,  I 
yield  to  no  importunities  on  the  other  side.  I  feel  myself  justified 
in  taking  every  advantage  which  the  Almighty  has  put  in  my  hands 
to  defend  the  power  and  authority  of  this  body.  I  will  not  yield  to 
these  appeals  of  comity  on  a  question  like  this,  but  I  will  tell  the 
President  and  everybody  else  that  if  God  Almighty  has  stricken  a 
member  of  this  body  so  that  he  cannot  be  here  to  uphold  the  dicta- 
tion of  a  despot,  I  thank  him  for  it  and  I  will  take  every  advantage 
of  it  I  can." 

Mr.  Wade  was  answered  with  great  severity  by  Mr.  McDougal  of 
California.  Mr.  Guthrie  spoke  with  much  spirit,  but  not  with  the 
temper  of  Mr.  McDougal.  "  I  should  not  like  it  to  go  out  from  this 
body,"  said  the  senator  from  Kentucky,  "that  Mr.  Stockton  was 
removed  to  get  rid  of  his  vote.  I  do  not  want  it  to  go  out  from  this 
body  that  we  would  not  extend  courtesy  to  sick  senators  because  we 
could  pass  a  bill  without  their  votes  when  we  might  not  pass  it  if 
they  were  here.  The  time  will  come  when  the  people,  being  con- 
vinced of  these  things,  will  say  that  there  is  more  to  be  feared  from 
a  combined  Congress  than  from  a  President,  in  relation  to  the  liberties 
of  the  people."  The  angry  position  of  Mr.  Wade  was  not  sustained 
by  the  Senate  and  the  motion  to  adjourn  was  carried  by  33  to  12. 
The  debate  continued  throughout  the  next  day  and  disclosed  during 


CIVIL  RIGHTS  BILL  BECOMES  A  LAW.  179 

its  progress  that  Senator  Lane  of  Kansas  had  joined  the  small  band 
of  Administration  Republicans.  He  attempted  to  take  part  in  the 
debate  but  was  unmercifully  dealt  with  by  Mr.  Wade,  Mr.  Trum- 
bull  and  others,  and  paid  dearly  for  his  personal  defection.  When 
the  vote  was  taken  upon  passing  the  bill  over  the  President's  veto 
the  ayes  were  33  and  the  noes  15.  Every  senator  was  present  except 
Mr.  Dixon  of  Connecticut,  still  detained  from  the  Senate  by  illness. 
There  was  one  vacancy,  Mr.  Stockton's  seat  not  having  yet  been 
filled.  Among  the  nays  were  Mr.  Cowan,  Mr.  Doolittle,  Mr.  Lane 
of  Kansas,  Mr.  Norton  and  Mr.  Van  Winkle. 

The  bill  went  to  the  House  and  after  a  very  brief  debate  came 
to  a  vote  on  the  9th  of  April  —  yeas  122,  nays  41.  Speaker  Colfax 
directed  that  his  name  should  be  called  in  order  that  he  might  have 
the  honor  of  recording  himself  for  the  bill.  He  then  announced 
that  having  received  the  vote  of  two-thirds  of  each  House  the  Civil 
Rights  Bill  had  become  a  law,  the  President's  objections  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding.  The  announcement  was  received  with  an 
outburst  of  applause,  in  which  the  members  of  the  House  as  well  as 
the  throng  of  spectators  heartily  joined  —  the  speaker  being  unable 
to  restore  order  for  several  minutes.  It  recalled  the  scene  of  a  little 
more  than  a  year  before,  when  the  rejoicing  over  the  passage  of  the 
Thirteenth  Amendment  was  equally  demonstrative. 


To  many  persons  of  conservative  mind  the  bill  seemed  too  radical 
—  to  many  it  seemed  positively  rash.  It  was  an  illustration  of  how 
rapidly  public  opinion  is  changed,  and  with  what  force  it  may  be 
brought  to  bear  on  a  given  question  in  a  period  that  is  filled  with 
the  spirit  of  revolutionary  excitement.  If  five  years  before  the  most 
pronounced  anti-slavery  man  in  the  country  had  been  told  that  not 
only  would  slavery  be  abolished,  not  only  would  the  slave  be  trans- 
formed into  a  citizen,  but  that  the  National  Government  would  confer 
upon  him  all  the  civil  rights  pertaining  to  the  white  man  and  would 
stretch  forth  its  arm  to  protect  him  in  those  rights  throughout  the  lim- 
its of  the  Republic,  it  would  have  seemed  to  him  as  the  wildest  fancy 
of  a  distempered  brain.  But  this  had  actually  come  to  pass  through 
the  ordinary  forms  of  legislation,  and  by  such  a  preponderating  display 
of  senatorial  and  representative  strength  as  had  scarcely  ever  before 
controlled  a  public  policy  since  the  founda'tion  of  the  Government. 


180  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

It  was  not,  of  course,  without  some  misgiving,  without  a  certain 
timidity  and  distrust,  that  many  Republicans  were  brought  to  the 
support  of  these  measures.  They  did  not  object  to  their  inherent 
and  essential  justice  and  rightfulness,  but  with  instinctive  caution 
they  feared  that  an  attempt  to  wipe  away  the  prejudices  of  two 
centuries  in  a  single  day  might  lead  to  a  dangerous  re-action,  and 
to  a  consequent  change  in  the  political  control  of  the  country. 
Many  who  were  borne  along  in  the  irresistible  current  of  aggres- 
sive reform  dreaded  all  the  more  the  effect  of  the  votes  which  the 
moral  and  political  pressure  of  their  constituents  compelled  them 
to  give.  In  the  Constitutional  amendment  abolishing  slavery  they 
went  forward  without  distrust,  with  complete  approbation  of  con- 
science, with  undoubting  belief  in  the  expediency  of  the  act.  They 
knew  that  the  great  mass  of  the  North  was  heartily  opposed  to 
slavery :  they  knew  that  its  abolition  was  not  merely  right  but  was 
destined  to  be  popular.  It  affected  moreover  only  that  great  sec- 
tion of  country  which  had  engaged  in  the  crime  of  rebellion ;  and  if 
it  were  viewed  only  as  a  punishment  of  those  who  had  sought  the 
destruction  of  the  Government,  they  felt  more  than  justified  in 
inflicting  it. 

But  the  legislation  now  accomplished  was  of  a  different  type. 
In  no  State  of  the  North  had  there  ever  been  social  equality  be- 
tween the  negro  and  the  white  man.  It  had  been  most  nearly 
approached  in  New  England  ,  but  still  there  were  points  of  prejudice 
which  time  had  not  effaced  nor  custom  changed.  In  the  Middle  and 
Western  States  the  feeling  was  much  deeper.  In  many  of  their 
laws  a  discrimination  was  made  against  the  negro,  and  a  direct  inter- 
ference with  the  habits  of  loyal  communities  on  this  subject  involved 
many  considerations  which  did  not  in  any  degree  attach  to  legis- 
lation affecting  only  the  Southern  States.  There  was  among  Demo- 
cratic leaders  a  confidence  as  marked  as  the  timidity  on  the  part 
of  Republicans.  They  were  sure  of  a  re-action  in  their  favor ;  they 
believed  that  the  Republicans  had  taken  the  step  which  would  prove 
fatal  to  them,  and  that  with  the  prejudices  of  the  people  supple- 
mented by  the  patronage  of  the  President  a  serious  division  would 
ensue,  which  would  prove  fatal  to  Radical  ascendency  in  a  major- 
ity of  the  Northern  States.  Overcome  in  both  chambers  by  the 
aggressive  force  of  a  majority  which  transcended  the  limit  of  two- 
thirds,  they  congratulated  themselves  that  this  very  power,  beyond 
the  restraint  of  the  Executive  and  exercised  in  defiance  of  his 


GROWING  HOSTILITY  OF  PRESIDENT  AND  CONGRESS.     181 

opinions,  would  prove  the  pitfall  of  Republicanism  wherever  race 
prejudice  was  kept  alive. 

The  passage  of  these  bills  by  Congress,  their  persistent  veto  by  the 
President  and  their  re-enactment  against  his  objections,  produced, 
as  had  been  anticipated,  not  only  an  open  political  hostility,  but  one 
which  rapidly  advanced  to  a  condition  in  which  violent  epithet  and 
mutual  denunciation  indicated  the  deplorable  relations  of  the  two 
great  departments  of  the  Government.  The  veto  of  the  Freedmen's- 
Bureau  Bill,  on  the  19th  of  February,  was  followed  by  a  large  popu- 
lar meeting  in  Washington,  on  the  22d,  to  approve  the  President's 
action.  The  meeting  adjourned  to  the  White  House  to  congratu- 
late the  President,  and  he  in  turn  made  a  long  speech  in  which  he 
broke  through  all  restraint,  and  spoke  his  mind  with  exasperating 
frankness.  "  I  have,"  said  the  President,  "  fought  traitors  and  trea- 
son in  the  South.  I  opposed  Davis,  Toombs,  Slidell,  and  a  long  list 
of  others  whose  names  I  need  not  repeat;  and  now,  when  I  turn 
around  at  the  other  end  of  the  line,  I  find  men  —  I  care  not  by  what 
name  you  call  them  (a  voice :  4  Call  them  traitors  ')  — who  still  stand 
opposed  to  the  restoration  to  the  Union  of  these  States.  (A  voice : 
4  Give  us  their  names.')  A  gentleman  calls  for  their  names.  Well ! 
suppose  I  should  give  them  ?  I  look  upon  them,  I  repeat  it  as  Presi- 
dent or  citizen,  as  being  as  much  opposed  to  the  fundamental  princi- 
ples, of  this  Government,  and  believe  they  are  as  much  laboring  to 
pervert  or  destroy  them,  as  were  the  men  who  fought  against  them 
in  the  Rebellion.  (A  voice :  '  Give  us  the  names.')  I  say  Thaddeus 
Stevens  of  Pennsylvania.  (Tremendous  applause.)  I  say  Charles 
Sumner.  (Tremendous  applause.)  I  say  Wendell  Phillips  and 
others  of  the  same  stripe  are  among  them.  (A  voice :  4  Give  it  to 
Forney.')  Some  gentleman  in  the  crowd  says,  '  Give  it  to  Forney.' 
I  have  only  to  say  that  I  do  not  waste  my  ammunition  upon  dead 
ducks."  (Laughter  and  applause.)  .  .  .  "They  may  traduce  me," 
continued  the  President,  "  they  may  slander  me,  they  may  vituperate, 
but  let  me  say  to  you  that  it  has  no  effect  upon  me  ;  and  let  me  say 
in  addition  that  I  do  not  intend  to  be  bullied  by  my  enemies.  .  .  . 
There  is  an  earthquake  coming,  gentlemen :  there  is  a  ground-swell 
coming  of  popular  judgment  and  indignation.  The  American  people 
will  speak  for  their  interests,  and  they  will  know  who  are  their  friends 
and  who  their  enemies.  What  positions  have  I  held  under  this  Gov- 
ernment?— beginning  with  an  alderman  and  running  through  all  the 
branches  of  the  Legislature.  (A  voice :  '  From  a  tailor  up.')  Some 


182  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

gentleman  says  I  have  been  a  tailor.  (Tremendous  applause.)  Now 
that  did  not  discomfit  me  in  the  least ;  for  when  I  used  to  be  a 
tailor  I  had  the  reputation  of  being  a  good  one  and  of  making  close 
fits  (great  laughter);  always  punctual  with  my  customers  and  always 
did  good  work.  (A  voice  :  ;  No  patchwork.')  No :  I  do  not  want  any 
patchwork.  I  want  a  whole  suit.  But  I  will  pass  by  this  little  face- 
tiousness.  ...  I  was  saying  that  I  had  held  nearly  all  positions,  from 
alderman,  through  both  branches  of  Congress,  to  that  which  I  now 
occupy ;  and  who  is  there  that  will  say  Andrew  Johnson  ever  made 
a  pledge  that  he  did  not  redeem  or  made  a  promise  that  he  did  not 
fulfill?" 

Some  one  had  spoken  in  Congress  about  the  Presidential  obstacle 
to  be  gotten  out  of  the  way.  Mr.  Johnson  interpreted  this  as  mean- 
ing personal  violence  to  himself.  "  I  make  use,"  said  he,  "  of  a  very 
strong  expression  when  I  say  that  I  have  no  doubt  the  intention  was 
to  incite  assassination  and  so  get  out  of  the  way  the  obstacle  to 
place  and  power.  Whether  by  assassination  or  not,  there  are  individ- 
uals in  this  Government,  I  doubt  not,  who  want  to  destroy  our  insti- 
tutions and  change  the  character  of  the  Government.  Are  they  not 
satisfied  with  the  blood  which  has  been  shed  ?  Does  not  the  murder 
of  Lincoln  appease  the  vengeance  and  wrath  of  the  opponents  of  this 
Government?  Are  they  still  unslaked?  Do  they  still  want  more 
blood?  I  am  not  afraid  of  the  assassin  attacking  me  where  a  brave 
and  courageous  man  would  attack  another.  I  only  dread  him  when 
he  would  go  in  disguise,  his  footsteps  noiseless.  If  it  is  blood  they 
want  let  them  have  courage  enough  to  strike  like  men." 

The  speech  produced  a  very  unfavorable  impression  upon  the 
country.  Its  low  tone,  its  vulgar  abuse,  recalled  Mr.  Johnson's 
unhappy  words  at  the  time  of  his  inauguration  as  Vice-President, 
and  produced  throughout  the  country  a  feeling  of  humiliation.  His 
effort  to  make  it  appear  that  his  political  opponents  meditated 
assassination  was  regarded  as  a  thoroughly  unscrupulous  declaration, 
as  an  unworthy  attempt  to  place  himself  beside  Lincoln  in  the  mar- 
tyrdom of  duty  —  to  suggest  that  as  Lincoln  had  fallen,  sacrificed  to 
the  spirit  of  hostility  in  the  South,  so  he,  in  pursuing  his  line  of  duty, 
was  in  danger  of  being  sacrificed  to  hostility  in  the  North.  The 
delivery  of  this  speech  was  the  formal  forfeiture  of  the  respect  and 
confidence  of  the  great  majority  of  the  people  who  had  elected  him 
to  his  place,  and  he  failed  to  secure  compensation  by  gaining  the  re- 
spect or  confidence  of  those  who  had  opposed  him.  A  few  Democrats 


GROWING  HOSTILITY  OF  PRESIDENT  AND  CONGRESS.     183 

who  wished  to  worry  and  divide  the  Republican  party,  the  place- 
hunters  who  craved  the  favor  of  the  Executive,  a  few  deserters  from 
the  Republican  ranks  unable  to  pursue  the  path  of  exacting  duty, 
represented  by  their  combination  a  specious  support  for  the  President. 
Natives  of  the  border  States,  who  had  been  unwilling  to  join  in 
treasonable  demonstrations  against  the  Government  but  who  had 
not  been  inspired  with  sufficient  loyalty  to  join  actively  in  its  de- 
fense, now  naturally  rallied  around  Mr.  Johnson.  The  residents  of 
Washington,  consisting  at  that  time  of  Southern  men  and  South- 
ern sympathizers,  now  applauded  the  President  because  they  saw  an 
opportunity  to  distract  and  defeat  the  Republican  party.  But  the 
entire  mass  of  those  who  were  now  eager  to  sustain  the  President 
exhibited  but  a  pitiable  contrast  with  the  magnificent  party  which  he 
had  voluntarily  abandoned. 

The  increasing  fierceness  of  the  struggle  between  the  President 
and  Congress  gave  rise  to  every  form  of  evil  suspicion  and  evil 
imputation.  The  close  vote  on  the  Civil  Rights  Bill  admonished  the 
Republicans  of  their  danger.  If  Mr.  Dixon  had  not  been  confined 
to  his  house  by  illness,  if  Mr.N  Stockton  had  not  been  a  few  days 
before  deprived  of  his  seat,  the  Administration  would  have  been  able 
to  rally  seventeen  votes  in  the  negative,  leaving  but  thirty-three  to 
the  Republicans  out  of  a  Senate  of  fifty  members.  The  exigencies 
of  the  situation  presented  the  strongest  possible  temptation  to  take 
every  fair  advantage,  and  this  naturally  led  to  the  imputation  of  un- 
fair advantage.  A  large  number  of  honest-minded  opponents  believed 
that  a  careful  calculation  had  been  made  by  the  Republican  leaders, 
and  that  they  had  found  the  margin  so  close  as  to  be  unsafe  in  a  con- 
test with  the  President.  If  the  margin  had  been  broader  and  the 
two-thirds  vote  assured  past  all  reasonable  danger,  it  was  asserted,  and 
no  doubt  believed,  by  their  opponents,  that  the  Constitution  would 
not  have  been  strained  to  exchange  Mr.  Stockton  for  a  Republican 
senator,  who  was  sure  to  succeed  him.  It  was  the  first  attempt  in  our 
history  to  establish  the  policy  of  the  Government  without  regard  to 
the  President,  and  indeed  against  his  power.  In  the  case  of  Presi- 
dent Tyler  the  reverse  had  been  practically  attempted.  In  his  con- 
troversy with  the  Whigs  his  friends  constituted  more  than  a  third  in 
each  House  —  thus  making  his  veto  effective  and  leading  him  to  at- 
tempt the  adminstration  of  the  Government  without  regard  to  the 
opinions  of  Congress.  Mr.  Tyler  had  failed;  but  thus  far  in  the  con- 
troversy with  Johnson,  Congress  had  succeeded.  It  was  said,  how- 


184  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

ever,  with  great  pertinency  by  the  friends  of  the  President,  that 
Congress  was  enabled  to  do  this  only  by  the  exclusion  of  eleven 
States  of  the  Union  from  representation ;  and  from  this  fact  came  the 
Democratic  denunciation  of  the  Republican  party  for  administering 
the  affairs  of  the  Government  in  a  revolutionary  spirit. 

The  narrow  escape  of  the  measure  again  created  great  uneasiness, 
not  only  among  the  Republicans  in  Congress  but  throughout  the 
country.  One  or  two  more  defections  would  imperil  Republican  con- 
trol of  the  Senate.  The  loyalty  of  every  member  to  his  party  was 
therefore  scanned  with  closest  observation.  Rumors,  gossip,  inven- 
tions of  all  kinds  were  set  afloat  in  the  public  press,  —  hinting  first 
at  one  man  and  then  at  another  among  the  Republican  senators  as 
likely  to  weaken,  as  about  going  over  to  the  Administration,  as 
having  just  had  a  confidential  interview  with  Mr.  Seward,  as  dining 
the  evening  before  with  the  President,  or  as  being  concerned  in  some 
matter  of  even  less  consequence.  When  public  interest  is  height- 
ened the  imagination  of  the  people  is  stimulated,  until  trifles  light 
as  air  have  fatal  significance  in  one  direction  or  the  other.  Through- 
out the  spring  and  early  summer  of '1866  (the  tentative  period,  as 
it  may  be  called,  in  fixing  the  relations  of  the  President  and  Con- 
gress) this  suggestion  of  doubt,  this  latent  apprehension,  continued, 
and  was  not  indeed  wholly  removed  until  the  political  lines  were 
definitely  drawn  by  the  elections  for  representatives  to  Congress  in 
the  ensuing  autumn. 

The  situation  in  all  its  bearings  was  one  of  peculiar  embarrass- 
ment, beset  with  extraordinary  difficulties  to  those  who  directed  the 
proceedings  of  Congress.  In  reviewing  the  events  of  that  day,  what- 
ever may  be  thought  respecting  their  wisdom  and  expediency,  candid 
men  of  all  parties  will  concede  that  the  Republican  leaders  exhibited 
great  determination  of  purpose,  remarkable  steadiness -of  nerve  and 
unflagging  devotion  to  principle.  They  were  absolutely  without 
precedent  to  guide  them  in  the  exigencies  and  emergencies  of  the 
situation.  It  was  well  said  at  the  time  that  the  framers  of  the  Con- 
stitution in  1787  were  not  confronted  with  difficulties  so  grave  or 
surrounded  with  problems  so  complex  and  unproved,  as  were  the 
leaders  of  Congress  during  the  period  of  Reconstruction.  The 
framers  of  the  Constitution  met  for  one  purpose,  upon  which  all 
were  agreed.  They  had  only  to  reconcile  differences  of  detail  and 
to  adjust  the  jealousies  of  local  interest ;  but  in  1866  Congress  was 
called  upon  to  exclude  the  President  practically  from  all  share  in  the 


SUICIDE  OF  SENATOR  LANE.  185 

law-making  power,  and  to  charge  him  on  his  oath  of  duty  to  faithfully 
execute  laws,  against  which  he  had  constantly  entered  his  solemn 
protest,  not  only  as  inexpedient  but  as  unconstitutional.  Perhaps  a 
man  of  more  desperate  resolution  than  Mr.  Johnson  might  have  used 
his  Executive  power  more  effectively  against  Congress,  but  he  must 
have  done  so  at  the  expense  of  his  fidelity  to  sworn  obligations. 
The  practical  deduction  as  to  the  working  of  our  Governmental 
machinery,  from  the  whole  experience  of  that  troublous  era,  is  that 
two-thirds  of  each  House,  united  and  stimulated  to  one  end,  can 
practically  neutralize  the  Executive  power  of  the  Government  and 
lay  clown  its  policy  in  defiance  of  the  efforts  and  the  opposition  of 
the  President. 


The  defection  of  Senator  Lane  of  Kansas  from  the  ranks  of  the 
most  radical  Republicanism  caused  great  surprise  to  the  country. 
He  had  been  so  closely  identified  with  all  the  tragic  events  in  the 
prolonged  struggle  to  keep  slavery  out  of  Kansas,  that  he  was  con- 
sidered to  be  an  irreconcilable  foe  to  the  party  that  tolerated  or  in 
any  way  apologized  for  its  existence.  The  position  he  had  taken  in 
voting  against  the  Civil  Rights  Bill  worried  and  fretted  him.  He 
keenly  felt  his  separation  from  the  sympathy  of  such  men  as  Sumner, 
Chandler,  Wade,  and  the  whole  host  who  had  nobly  fought  the  bat- 
tle of  Kansas  in  the  halls  of  Congress.  He  felt  still  more  keenly  the 
general  and  somewhat  indignant  disapproval  of  his  action,  freely  ex- 
pressed by  the  great  mass  of  his  constituents.  One  of  his  intimate 
friends  said  that  on  the  very  day  of  his  vote  he  received  a  telegram 
warning  him  that  if  he  voted  against  the  bill  it  would  be  the  mistake 
of  his  life.  The  telegram  reached  him  after  the  roll  had  been  called. 
He  said  excitedly,  "  The  mistake  has  been  made.  I  would  give  all  I 
possess  if  it  were  undone."  He  was  still  further  disturbed  by  impu- 
tations upon  his  integrity  in  connection  with  some  transactions  of 
the  Indian  Bureau  —  imputations  which  were  pronounced  baseless  by 
the  two  senators  from  Indiana  (Thomas  A.  Hendricks  and  Henry  S. 
Lane),  one  a  political  opponent  and  the  other  a  political  friend,  who 
had  impartially  examined  all  the  facts.  But  under  the  mortification 
caused  by  parting  with  old  political  associates,  and  the  humiliation 
to  which  he  was  subjected  by  groundless  imputations  upon  his  char- 
acter, his  mind  gave  way  and  on  the  llth  of  July,  1866  he  com- 
mitted suicide. 


186  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

General  Lane  was  a  native  of  Indiana,  son  of  a  reputable  lawyer, 
Amos  Lane,  who  was  a  representative  in  Congress  during  the  Ad- 
ministrations of  Jackson  and  Van  Buren.  He  thus  inherited  Democ- 
racy of  the  most  aggressive  type.  He  was  a  man  of  violent  passions 
and  marked  courage.  He  commanded  a  regiment  of  Indiana  volun- 
teers at  the  battle  of  Buena  Vista,  and  in  1852  was  elected  a  member 
of  the  House  of  Representatives.  He  was  a  warm  supporter  of  Doug- 
las and  voted  for  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  He  im- 
mediately afterwards  emigrated  to  Kansas,  as  he  said,  "to  see  fair 
play  under  the  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty."  His  career  thence- 
forward formed  a  large  part  of  the  history  of  Kansas.  He  contrib- 
uted perhaps  as  largely  as  any  other  one  man  to  the  victory  of 
the  Free-State  policy,  and  became  as  violent  in  his  hostility  to  the 
Democratic  party  as  he  had  formerly  been  in  its  advocacy.  When 
his  State  was  admitted  to  the  Union  in  1861  he  was  rewarded  with 
the  honor  of  being  one  of  her  first  senators  in  Congress.  His  course 
in  the  Senate,  until  the  time  of  his  defection,  had  been  especially 
marked  for  its  aggressiveness  in  support  of  the  war  and  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  institution  of  slavery.  -He  was  profoundly  attached  to 
Mr.  Lincoln  and  had  received  many  marks  of  his  friendship.  The 
motive  for  his  strange  course  under  President  Johnson  was  never 
clearly  disclosed.  He  was  in  the  full  vigor  of  life  when  he  closed  it 
with  his  own  hands,  being  a  few  weeks  beyond  his  fifty-first  birthday. 

The  Administration  of  Mr.  Johnson  had,  before  the  death  of  Mr. 
Lane,  been  unhappily  associated  in  the  popular  mind  with  another 
suicide.  A  few  days  before  the  assembling  of  Congress  Mr.  Preston 
King,  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York,  had  drowned  himself  in  the 
Hudson  River  by  leaping  from  a  ferry-boat.  He  had  been  for  more 
than  twenty  years  an  intimate  friend  of  Mr.  Johnson  and  held,  as 
already  narrated,  a  confidential  relation  to  him  at  -the  time  of  his 
accession  to  the  Presidency.  ,He  had  been  especially  influential  in 
the  National  Republican  Convention  of  1864  in  securing  for  Mr. 
Johnson  the  nomination  for  the  Vice-Presidency.  The  original  disa- 
greement with  Mr.  Seward  was  generally  ascribed  to  the  influence  of 
Mr.  King  upon  the  President,  but  when,  with  Mr.  Seward  in  the 
Cabinet,  Mr.  King  was  appointed  collector  of  customs  for  the  port  of 
New  York,  it  was  understood  to  mean  that  a  perfect  reconciliation 
had  taken  place  between  all  the  Republican  factions  in  his  State. 
The  change  in  the  President's  position  was  a  complete  surprise  to 
Mr.  King  and  left  him  in  a  peculiarly  embarrassing  situation.  He 


SUICIDE  OF  PRESTON  KING.  187 

was  essentially  a  radical  man  in  all  his  political  views,  and  the  evi- 
dent tendency  of  the  President  towards  extreme  conservatism  on  the 
question  of  reconstruction  was  a  keen  distress  to  him.  *  He  was  at  a 
loss  to  determine  his  course  of  action.  If  he  should  resign  his  post 
it  would  be  the  proclamation  of  hostility  to  one  to  whom  he  was 
deeply  attached.  If  he  should  remain  in  office  he  feared  it  might 
be  at  the  expense  of  forfeiting  the  good  will  of  the  tens  of  thousands 
of  New-York  Republicans  who  had  always  reposed  the  utmost  confi- 
dence in  his  fidelity  to  principle,  and  who  had  rewarded  him  with 
the  highest  honors  in  their  power  to  bestow.  He  had  not  desired  the 
collectorship,  and  consented  to  accept  it  only  from  his  sincere  friend- 
ship for  the  President  and  from  his  earnest  desire  to  harmonize  the 
Republican  party  in  New  York  and  bring  its  full  strength  to  the  sup- 
port of  the  Administration.  The  office  had  given  him  no  pleasure. 
It  had  indeed  brought  him  nothing  but  care  and  anxiety.  The  appli- 
cations for  place  were  numerous  and  perplexing,  the  daily  routine  of 
duty  was  onerous  and  exacting,  and  his  pecuniary  responsibility  to 
the  Government,  much  exaggerated  by  his  worried  mind,  constantly 
alarmed  him.  Mr.  King  found  himself  therefore  so  situated  that, 
whichever  way  he  turned,  he  faced  embarrassment  in  his  career, 
and  as  he  imagined,  disaster  to  his  reputation.  In  the  conflicting 
emotions  incident  to  his  entangled  position,  his  brain  was  fevered  and 
his  intellect  became  disordered.  From  the  anguish  which  his  sensi- 
tive nature  could  not  endure,  he  sought  relief  in  the  grave. 

Mr.  King  was  born  in  1806  at  Ogdensburg,  St.  Lawrence  County, 
New  York,  which  throughout  his  life  continued  to  be  his  home.  He 
became  prominent  in  political  affairs,  while  still  a  young  man,  as  a 
zealous  supporter  of  President  Jackson  in  whose  interest  he  edited 
a  paper.  He  attached  himself  to  that  strong  school  of  New-York 
Democrats  of  whom  Silas  Wright  was  the  acknowledged  leader. 
After  conspicuous  service  in  the  New-York  Legislature,  he  entered 
Congress  in  1845  and  remained  until  1851.  When  the  South  de- 
manded the  abrogation  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  Mr.  King  fol- 
lowed his  personal  convictions,  broke  from  his  Democratic  associations 
and  aided  in  the  organization  of  the  Republican  party.  He  adhered 
steadily  to  the  fortunes  of  the  new  party  and  brought  with  him  a 
strong  popular  support  —  the  large  Republican  majorities  in  Northern 
New  York  being  originally  due  in  no  small  degree  to  his  personal 
influence  and  earnest  efforts. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

CONTEST  BETWEEN  PRESIDENT  AND  CONGRESS.  —  POINTS  OF  DIFFERENCE.— WHAT 
CONGRESS  INSISTED  ON.  —  REQUIRED  DEFINITION  OF  AMERICAN  CITIZENSHIP.— 
POLITICAL  DISABILITIES.  —  THE  PUBLIC  CREDIT.  —  PROTECTION  OF  NATIONAL  PEN- 
SIONS.—  REPUDIATION  OF  REBEL  DEBT. — POSSIBLE  PAYMENT  FOR  SLAVES. — AP- 
PREHENSIONS OF  CAPITALISTS.  —  DANGER  HANGING  OVER  NATIONAL  TREASURY.— 
AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  FEDERAL  CONSTITUTION.  —  SHOULD  REBEL  STATES  PARTICI- 
PATE.—  MR.  SEWARD'S  VIEW.  —  MR.  THADDEUS  STEVENS'S  VIEW.  —  PROCEEDINGS 
OF  RECONSTRUCTION  COMMITTEE.  —  PROPOSED  BASES  OF  REPRESENTATION.  — 
AMENDMENT  PROPOSED  BY  MR.  SPALDING.  —  BY  MR.  BLAINE.  —  BY  MR.  CONK- 
LING.  —  SPEECH  BY  MR.  JENCKES  OF  RHODE  ISLAND.  —  BY  MR.  BAKER  AND  MR. 
INGERSOLL  OF  ILLINOIS.  — BY  MR.  SHELLABARGER.  —  BY  MR.  PIKE  OF  MAINE.— 
MR.  SCHENCK'S  AMENDMENT.  — HOUSE  ADOPTS  AMENDMENT.  —  OPPOSED  IN  THE 
SENATE.  — LONG  SPEECH  OF  MR.  SUMNER.  —  REPLY  OF  MR.  FESSENDEN.  —  SPEECH 
OF  SENATOR  HENDERSON. — His  RADICAL  PROPOSITION.  —  SENATE  DEFEATS  HOUSE 
AMENDMENT.  —  NEW  PROPOSITION  FROM  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  COMMITTEE.  — 
FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT  TO  THE  CONSTITUTION  PROPOSED.  —  ITS  ORIGINAL  FORM. 

—  DEBATE    IN   THE   HOUSE.  —  PROCEEDINGS  IN   THE   SENATE.  —  LONG  DEBATE.— 
SPEECHES  BY  MR.  HOWARD,  MR.  HENDRICKS,  MR.  SHERMAN,  MR.  REVERDY  JOHN- 
SON, MR.  DOOLITTLE.  —  FINAL  ADOPTION  OF  THE  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT  BY 
BOTH  BRANCHES.  —  NOTIFICATION  TO  THE  STATES  JUNE  16.  — PROMPT  ADOPTION 
BY   TENNESSEE.  —  TENNESSEE    RE-ADMITTED    TO    REPRESENTATION. —ACTION    OF 
SENATE  AND   HOUSE   THEREON. — REASONS  ASSIGNED  FOR  PASSING  THE   BILL.— 
PRESIDENT  APPROVES  THE  BILL,  BUT  DISAPPROVES  THE  REASONS  FOR  ITS  PASSAGE. 

—  His  INGENUOUS  CENSURE  OF   CONGRESS.  —  ADJOURNMENT    OF    CONGRESS.— IM- 
PENDING POLITICAL  CONTEST.  —  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN  THE  PRESIDENT  AND  CONGRESS. 

r~T!HE  controversies  between  the  President  and  Congress,  thus  far 
I  narrated,  did  not  involve  what  have  since  been  specifically  known 
as  the  Reconstruction  measures.  Those  were  yet  to  come.  The  es- 
tablishment of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  was  at  best  designed  to  be  a 
temporary  charity ;  and  the  Civil  Rights  Bill,  while  growing  out  of 
changes  effected  by  the  war,  was  applicable  alike  to  all  conditions 
and  to  all  times.  The  province  of  the  Special  Committee  on  Recon- 
struction was  to  devise  and  perfect  those  measures  which  should 
secure  the  fruits  of  the  Union  victory,  by  prescribing  the  essential 
grounds  upon  which  the  revolted  States  should  be  re-admitted  to 
representation  in  Congress.  The  principal  objects  aimed  at  were  at 

188 


MEASURES  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  189 

least  four  in  number.  That  which  most  largely  engaged  popular 
attention  at  the  outset  was  the  increased  representation  which  the 
South  was  to  secure  by  the  manumission  of  the  negroes.  In  the 
original  Constitution  only  three-fifths  of  the  slaves  were  permitted 
to  be  enumerated  in  the  basis  of  apportionment.  Two-fifths  were 
now  added  and  an  increase  of  political  power  to  the  South  appeared 
probable  as  the  somewhat  startling  result  of  the  civil  struggle. 
There  was  an  obvious  injustice  in  giving  to  the  white  men  of  the 
South  the  right  to  elect  representatives  in  Congress  apportioned  to 
their  section  by  reason  of  the  four  and  a  half  millions  of  negroes, 
who  were  enumerated  in  the  census  but  not  allowed  to  exercise  any 
political  power.  By  permitting  this,  a  Confederate  soldier  who 
fought  to  destroy  the  Union  would  be  endowed  with  a  larger  power 
of  control  in  the  National  Government  than  the  loyal  soldier  who 
fought  to  maintain  the  Union.  To  allow  this  to  be  accomplished 
and  permanently  incorporated  in  the  working  of  the  Government 
would  be  a  mere  mockery  of  justice,  the  utter  subversion  of  fair 
play  between  man  and  man. 

Another  subject  deeply  engaging  Northern  thought  was  the  defi- 
nition of  American  citizenship.  There  was  a  strong  desire  to  place 
it  on  such  substantial  foundation  as  should  prevent  the  possibility  of 
sinister  interpretation  by  the  Judiciary,  and  guard  it  at  the  same 
time  against  different  constructions  in  different  States.  This  was  an 
omission  in  the  original  Constitution  —  so  grave  an  omission,  indeed, 
that  the  guarantee  entitling  citizens  of  each  State  to  the  privileges 
and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  several  States,  was  in  many  cases 
ignored,  often  indeed  defied  and  destroyed.  If  we  were  now  to 
have  a  broader  nationality  as  the  result  of  our  civil  struggle,  it  was 
apparent  to  the  mass  of  men,  as  well  as  to  the  publicist  and  states- 
man, that  citizenship  should  be  placed  on  unquestionable  ground  — 
on  ground  so  plain  that  the  humblest  man  who  should  inherit  its  pro- 
tection would  comprehend  the  extent  and  significance  of  his  title. 

A  third  point  had  taken  possession  of  the  popular  mind,  quick- 
ened and  intensified  as  it  was  by  the  conflict  between  the  President 
and  Congress.  The  President,  as  already  stated,  had  by  the  lavish 
use  of  the  pardoning  power  signalized  his  change  on  the  subject  of 
Reconstruction.  Many  of  the  worst  offenders  in  the  Confederate 
cause  had  received  Executive  clemency.  Not  only  had  the  general 
mass  of  rebels  been  pardoned  by  the  amnesty  proclamation  of  May 
29th,  but  many  thousands  of  the  classes  excepted  in  that  instrument 


190  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

had  afterwards  received  special  pardons  from  the  President.  The 
crime  of  treason,  which  they  had  committed,  was  thus  condoned, 
and  the  Executive  pardon  could  be  pleaded  against  any  indictment 
or  any  attempt  to  punish  by  process  of  law.  If  there  should  be  no 
provision  to  the  contrary,  these  pardoned  men  would  thus  become  as 
eligible  to  all  the  honors  and  emoluments  of  the  Republic  as  though 
they  had  not  for  four  years  been  using  their  utmost  efforts  to  de- 
stroy its  existence.  It  was  therefore  the  general  expectation  of  the 
people  that  by  some  law,  either  statute  or  organic,  the  political  privi- 
leges of  these  men,  so  far  as  the  right  to  hold  office  was  involved, 
should  be  restricted,  and  that,  without  contravening  the  full  force 
and  effect  of  the  President's  pardon,  they  might  justly  be  deprived 
of  all  right  to  receive  the  honors  of  the  Nation  and  of  the  State. 
From  the  crime  of  rebellion  they  had  been  freed  by  the  President, 
but  it  was  expected  that  Congress  would  clearly  define  the  difference 
between  pardoning  a  rebel  for  treason  to  his  country  and  endowing 
him  with  the  right  to  enjoy  the  honors  and  emoluments  of  office. 

Other  subjects  had  entered  into  the  public  apprehension  and 
were  brought  prominently  to  the  attention  of  Congress,  and  by  Con- 
gress referred  to  the  Reconstruction  Committee.  There  was  a  fear 
that  if,  by  a  political  convulsion,  the  Confederates  of  the  South  should 
unite  with  the  Democratic  opponents  of  the  war  in  the  North  and 
thus  obtain  control  of  the  Government,  they  might,  at  least  by  some 
indirect  process  if  not  directly,  impair  the  public  obligations  of  the 
United  States  incurred  in  suppressing  the  Rebellion.  They  feared 
that  the  large  bounties  already  paid  to  Union  soldiers,  and  the  gen- 
erous pensions  already  provided  or  which  might  afterwards  be  pro- 
vided, for  those  who  had  been  maimed  or  for  the  orphan  and  the 
widow  of  those  who  had  fallen,  might,  in  the  advent  of  the  same 
adverse  political  power  in  the  Government,  be  objected  to,  unless  at 
the  same  time  a  similar  concession  should  be  granted  to  the  misled 
and  deceived  masses  of  the  South,  who  had  with  reckless  daring 
been  forced  into  the  service  of  the  ill-starred  Confederacy.  It  was 
therefore  expected  that  Congress  would,  so  far  as  organic  law  could 
attain  that  end,  gm*rd  the  sacredness  of  the  public  debt  and  the 
equal  sacredness  of  the  National  pensions,  and  that  to  do  this  effec- 
tively it  should  be  provided  that  no  recognition  should  ever  be  made, 
either  by  the  National  Government  or  by  any  State  Governments, 
of  debts  incurred  in  aid  of  the  Rebellion. 

Still  another  subject  was  considered  to  be  of  grave  consequence. 


MEASURES  OF  RECONSTRUCTION".  191 

Preventive  measures  of  the  most  stringent  character  were  demanded 
against  a  threatened  danger  to  the  National  credit.  With  the  single 
exception  of  land,  which  is  the  basis  of  all  property,  the  South  had 
lost  the  largest  aggregate  investment  held  in  one  form  in  the  entire 
country.  The  money  value  of  Southern  slaves,  reckoned  at  current 
prices,  was  larger  when  the  war  broke  out  than  the  money  value  of 
railroads  or  of  manufacturing  establishments  in  the  United  States. 
For  the  defense  of  this  great  interest  the  war  had  been  avowedly  un- 
dertaken. Perhaps  it  would  be  more  truthful  to  say  that  the  ambi- 
tious and  conspiring  politicians  of  the  South  had  assumed  the  danger 
to  this  vast  investment  as  the  pretext  for  destroying  the  Government ; 
and  they  had  met  with  the  fate  so  solemnly  foretold  in  Sacred  Writ, 
—  they  had  drawn  the  sword  and  perished  by  the  sword.  As  the  one 
grand  consummation  of  the  struggle,  the  institution  of  slavery  had 
disappeared.  It  was  probable,  nay,  it  was  certainly  to  be  expected, 
that  in  the  destruction  of  so  large  an  investment  great  suffering 
would  come  to  many  who  had  not  participated  in  the  Rebellion ;  to 
many  indeed  who  had  opposed  it.  That  remuneration  for  losses 
should  be  asked  was  apparently  inevitable. 

Men  of  financial  skill  and  experience  saw  that  if  such  a  contin- 
gent liability  should  overhang  the  National  Treasury  the  public  credit 
might  be  fatally  impaired.  The  acknowledged  and  imperative  indebt- 
edness of  the  Government  was  already  enormous ;  contingencies  yet 
to  be  encountered  would  undoubtedly  increase  it,  and  its  weight 
would  press  heavily  upon  the  people  until  a  firmly  re-established 
credit  should  enable  the  Government  to  lower  the  rate  of  interest 
upon  its  bonds.  So  long  as  the  Government  was  compelled  to  pay 
its  interest  in  coin,  while  the  business  of  the  country  was  conducted 
upon  the  basis  of  suspended  'paper,  the  burden  upon  the  people 
would  be  great.  It  would  be  vastly  increased  in  imagination  (and 
imagination  is  rapidly  transformed  to  reality  in  the  tremulous  balance 
which  decides  the  standard  of  public  credit)  if  the  Nation  should 
not  be  able  to  define  with  absolute  precision  the  metes  and  bounds 
of  its  aggregate  obligation.  Hence  the  imperious  necessity  of 
excluding  all  possibility  of  the  payment  of  from  two  to  three  thou- 
sand millions  of  dollars  to  the  slave-holders  of  the  South.  If  that 
were  not  accomplished,  the  burden  would  be  so  great  that  the  Nation 
which  had  survived  the  shock  of  arms  might  be  engulfed  in  the 
manifold  calamities  of  bankruptcy. 

The  magnitude  of  the  reforms  for  which  the  popular  desire  was 


192  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

unmistakable,  may  in  some  degree  be  measured  by  the  fact  that  they 
involved  the  necessity  of  radical  changes  in,  and  important  additions 
to,  the  Federal  Constitution.  It  was  frankly  acknowledged  that  if 
the  President's  plan  of  Reconstruction  should  be  followed,  involving 
the  instant  admission  of  senators  and  representatives  from  the  re- 
volted States,  these  Constitutional  changes  could  not  be  effected, 
because  the  party  desiring  them  would  no  longer  control  two-thirds 
of  both  Senate  and  House.  Mr.  Seward,  in  his  persuasive  mode  of 
presenting  his  views,  had  urged  as  a  matter  of  justice  that  legislation 
affecting  the  Southern  States  should  be  open  to  the  participation  of 
representatives  from  those  States ;  but  Mr.  Thaddeus  Stevens,  who 
had  as  keen  an  intellect  as  Mr.  Seward  and  a  more  trenchant  style, 
declared  that  view  to  involve  an  absurdity.  He  avowed  his  belief 
that  there  was  no  greater  propriety  in  admitting  Southern  senators 
and  representatives  to  take  part  in  considering  the  financial  adjust- 
ments and  legislative  safeguards  rendered  necessary  by  their  crime, 
than  it  would  have  been  to  admit  the  Confederate  generals  to  the 
camp  of  the  Union  Army  when  measures  were  under  consideration 
for  the  overthrow  of  the  Rebellion.  - 

The  great  mass  of  Republicans  in  Congress  maintained  that  it 
was  not  only  common  justice  but  common  sense  to  define,  without 
interposition  or  advice  from  the  South,  the  conditions  upon  which 
the  insurrectionary  States  should  be  re-clothed  with  the  panoply  of 
National  power.  "  In  no  body  of  English  laws,"  said  Mr.  Stevens, 
in  an  animated  conversation  in  the  House,  "have  I  ever  found  a 
provision  which  authorizes  the  criminal  to  sit  in  judgment  when  the 
extent  of  his  crime  and  its  proper  punishment  were  under  considera- 
tion." The  argument,  therefore,  which  Mr.  Seward  had  made  with 
such  strength  for  the  President  was,  in  the  judgment  of  the  great 
majority  of  Northern  people,  altogether  ill-founded.^  By  the  caustic 
sentence  of  Mr.  Stevens  it  had  been  totally  overthrown.  The  aver- 
age judgment  approved  the  sharply  defined  and  stringent  policy  of 
Congress  as  set  forth  by  Mr.  Stevens,  rather  than  the  policy  so  com- 
prehensively embodied  and  so  skillfully  advocated  by  Mr.  Seward  on 
behalf  of  the  Administration.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  temp- 
tations presented  by  the  apparent  magnanimity  and  broad  charity  of 
Mr.  Seward's  line  of  procedure,  they  were  more  than  answered  by  the 
instincts  of  justice  and  by  the  sense  of  safety  embodied  in  the  plan  of 
Reconstruction  announced  and  about  to  be  pursued  by  Congress. 


THE  COMMITTEE  ON  RECONSTRUCTION.  193 

The  Joint  Special  Committee  on  Reconstruction,  appointed  at  the 
opening  of  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress  in  December,  did  not  meet  for 
organization  until  the  6th  of  January,  1866.  As  an  indication  of 
the  respectful  manner  in  which  they  desired  to  treat  the  President, 
and  the  care  with  which  they  would  proceed  in  their  important 
duties,  they  appointed  a  sub-committee  to  wait  on  Mr.  Johnson  and 
advise  him  that  the  committee  desired  to  avoid  all  possible  collision 
or  misconstruction  between  the  Executive  and  Congress  in  regard  to 
their  relative  positions.  They  informed  the  President  that  in  their 
judgment  it  was  exceedingly  desirable  that  while  this  subject  was 
under  consideration  by  the  joint  committee  no  further  action  in 
regard  to  Reconstruction  should  be  taken  by  him  unless  it  should 
become  imperatively  necessary.  The  committee  plainly  declared 
that  mutual  respect  would  seem  to  require  mutual  forbearance  on 
the  part  of  the  President  and  Congress.  Mr.  Johnson  replied  in 
effect  that,  while  desiring  the  question  of  Reconstruction  to  be 
advanced  as  rapidly  as  would  be  consistent  with  the  public  interest, 
he  earnestly  sought  for  harmony  of  action,  and  to  that  end  he  would 
take  no  further  steps  without  advising  Congress.  This  promise  of 
each  branch  of  the  Government  to  wait  patiently  on  the  other  was 
no  doubt  sincere,  but  it  soon  proved  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to 
maintain  the  compact.  When  two  co-ordinate  departments  were 
holding  antagonistic  views  on  the  vital  question  at  issue,  collisions 
between  them  could  not  be  averted.  As  matter  of  fact  the  resolution, 
as  has  been  seen  by  events  already  narrated,  so  far  from  proving  itself 
to  be  an  adjustment  did  not  serve  even  as  a  truce  between  the  Presi- 
dent and  Congress.  It  was  found  impracticable  to  secure  repression 
and  the  contest  went  forward  with  constantly  accelerating  speed. 

The  first  question  on  the  subject  of  Reconstruction  which  engaged 
the  attention  of  Congress,  was  the  re-adjustment  of  the  basis  of 
representation ;  and  for  a  time  it  absorbed  all  others.  The  first 
proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution  in  this  respect  had  been  made 
by  Mr.  Stevens  on  the  5th  of  December,  providing  "that  representa- 
tives shall  be  apportioned  among  the  States  which  may  be  within  the 
Union  according  to  their  respective  legal  voters,  and  for  this  pur- 
pose none  shall  be  named  as  legal  voters  who  are  not  either  natural 
born  citizens  of  the  United  States  or  naturalized  foreigners."  During 
the  month  of  December  the  question  of  representation  was  discussed, 
partly  in  public  debate,  but  more  in  conference  among  members ;  and 
the  plan  of  placing  the  basis  upon  legal  voters,  at  first  warmly  urged, 
VOL.  II.  13 


194  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

was  quickly  abandoned  as  its  probable  results  were  scrutinized. 
When  Congress  convened  after  the  holidays,  on  Friday  the  5th  of 
January,  Mr.  Spalding  of  Ohio,  in  a  speech  already  referred  to,  pro- 
posed an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  in  regard  to  representation 
in  Congress,  directing  that  "people  of  color  shall  not  be  counted 
with  the  population  in  making  up  the  ratio  of  representation,  except 
it  be  in  States  where  they  are  permitted  to  exercise  the  elective  fran- 
chise," and  this  was  probably  the  earliest  foreshadowing  of  the  real 
change  in  the  basis  of  representation  that  was  made  by  the  Four- 
teenth Amendment. 

On  the  ensuing  Monday  Mr.  Blaine  of  Maine  proposed  the  fol- 
lowing, in  lieu  of  the  Constitutional  provision  then  existing :  "  Rep- 
resentatives and  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several 
States  which  shall  be  included  within  this  Union  according  to  their 
respective  numbers,  which  shall  be  determined  by  taking  the  whole 
number  of  persons,  except  those  whose  political  rights  or  privileges  are 
denied  or  abridged  by  the  constitution  of  any  State  on  account  of  race  or 
color"  Mr.  Blaine  objected  to  taking  voters  as  the  basis  of  repre- 
sentation. "  If,"  said  he,  "  voters  instead  of  population  shall  be 
made  the  basis  of  representation,  certain  results  will  follow,  not  fully 
appreciated  perhaps  by  some  who  are  now  urgent  for  the  change.  I 
shall  confine  my  examination  of  these  results  to  the  nineteen  free 
States,  whose  statistics  are  presented  in  the  census  of  1860,  and  the 
very  radical  change  which  the  new  basis  of  apportionment  would 
produce  among  those  States  forms  the  ground  of  my  opposition  to  it. 
The  ratio  of  voters  to  population  differs  very  widely  in  different  sec- 
tions, varying,  in  the  States  referred  to,  from  a  minimum  of  nineteen 
per  cent  to  a  maximum  of  fifty-eight  per  cent ;  and  some  of  the  changes 
which  its  effect  would  work  in  the  relative  representation  of  certain 
States  would  be  monstrous.  For  example,  California  has  a  population 
of  358,110  and  Vermont  has  a  population  of  314,369,  and  each  has 
three  representatives  on  this  floor  to-day.  But  California  has  207,000 
voters  and  Vermont  has  only  87,000.  Assuming  voters  as  the  basis 
of  apportionment  and  allowing  to  Vermont  three  representatives, 
California  would  be  entitled  to  eight.  The  great  State  of  Ohio,  with 
nearly  seven  times  the  population  of  California,  would  have  but 
little  more  than  two  and  a  half  times  the  number  of  representatives ; 
and  New  York,  with  quite  eleven  times  the  population  of  California, 
would  havie,  in  the  proposed  method  of  apportionment,  less  than  five 
times  as  many  members  of  this  House." 


THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION.  195 

Mr.  Elaine  adduced  some  other  examples  less  extreme  than 
those  quoted,  but  the  generalization  was  no  doubt  too  broad  and 
presented  in  some  respects  an  erroneous  conclusion.  The  only  mode 
of  getting  at  the  number  of  voters  was  by  the  ballots  cast  at  the 
general  elections,  and  the  relative  ratio  was  varied  by  so  many  con- 
siderations that  it  did  not  correctly  represent  the  actual  number  of 
voters  in  each  State.  But  the  facts  presented  by  Mr.  Elaine  and 
elaborated  by  other  speakers  turned  the  attention  of  the  House  away 
from  an  apportionment  based  on  voters. 

Mr.  Conkling,  a  few  days  later,  in  referring  to  Mr.  Elaine's  argu- 
ment, maintained  that  "  the  ratio,  in  dividing  the  whole  population 
of  the  United  States  into  two  hundred  and  forty-one  representative 
districts,  leaving  out  such  extreme  cases  as  California,  would  not  be 
seriously  affected  by  assuming  the  white  male  voters  as  the  basis  of 
apportionment."  On  the  15th  of  January  Mr.  Conkling  submitted 
a  Constitutional  amendment  on  the  subject,  in  two  forms ;  making 
the  proviso  in  one  case  that  "  whenever  in  any  one  State  the  politi- 
cal rights  or  privileges  of  any  man  shall  be  denied  or  abridged  on 
account  of  race  or  color,  all  persons  of  such  race  or  color  shall  be 
excluded  from  the  basis  of  representation,"  and  the  other  providing 
that  "  when  the  elective  franchise  in  any  State  shall  be  denied  or 
abridged  on  account  of  race  or  color,  all  persons  of  such  race  or  color 
so  denied  shall  be  excluded  from  the  basis  of  representation." 

On  the  22d  of  January  the  Reconstruction  Committee,  both  in 
the  Senate  and  House,  reported  their  proposed  amendment  to  the 
Constitution  on  this  subject.  It  was  in  these  words :  "  Representa- 
tives and  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several  States 
which  may  be  included  within  this  Union  according  to  their  respec- 
tive numbers,  counting  the  whole  number  of  persons  in  each  State  — 
excluding  Indians  not  taxed ;  provided,  that  whenever  the  elective 
franchise  shall  be  denied  or  abridged  in  any  State  on  account  of  race 
or  color,  all  persons  of  such  race  or  color  shall  be  excluded  from 
the  basis  of  representation."  The  amendment  was  substantially  the 
second  form  of  that  proposed  by  Mr.  Conkling.  He  was  a  member 
of  the  Reconstruction  Committee  and  opened  the  discussion  on  the 
subject  with  a  carefully  prepared  speech.  The  peculiar  feature  of 
this  amendment  was  that  if  any  portion  of  the  people  should  be 
excluded  by  reason  of  race  or  color,  every  individual  of  that  race  or 
color  would  be  excluded  from  the  basis  of  apportionment.  As  Mr. 
Stevens  expressed  it,  if  one  man  should  be  excluded  from  the  ballot- 


196  TWENTY  TEAKS  OF  CONGRESS. 

box  on  account  of  his  race,  then  the  whole  race  should  be  excluded 
from  the  basis  of  apportionment. 

The  proposition  led  to  a  long  debate,  the  differences  being  to  a 
great  extent  among  members  on  the  Republican  side.  Mr.  Jenckes 
of  Rhode  Island  objected  to  it,  because  it  would  not  effect  the  object 
aimed  at.  "Suppose,"  said  he,  "this  amendment  is  adopted  by 
three-fourths  of  the  States  and  becomes  a  part  of  the  Constitution, 
and  after  its  adoption  the  State  of  South  Carolina  should  re-instate 
her  old  constitution,  striking  out  the  word  '  white,'  and  re-establish- 
ing the  property  qualification  of  fifty  acres  of  land  or  town-lots  or  the 
payment  of  taxes,  there  would  then  be  no  discrimination  of  color  in 
South  Carolina ;  yet,  while  the  number  of  her  voters  would  not  be 
enlarged  five  hundred,  the  representation  would  be  exactly  as  it  is, 
with  the  addition  of  two-fifths  of  the  enfranchised  freedmen."  Mr. 
Elaine  objected  that  "  if  by  ordinary  fair  play  we  exclude  any  class 
from  the  basis  of  representation  they  should  be  excluded  from  the 
basis  of  taxation,  and  therefore  we  should  strike  out  the  word  4  taxes.' 
Ever  since  the  Government  was  founded  taxation  and  representation 
have  gone  hand  in  hand.  If  we  exclude  that  principle  from  this 
amendment  we  shall  be  accused  of  narrow,  illiberal,  mean-spirited, 
money-grasping  policy." 

Mr.  Donnelly  of  Minnesota  supported  the  measure,  not  as  a 
finality  but  as  a  partial  step,  —  as  one  of  a  series  of  necessary  laws. 
Mr.  Sloan  of  Wisconsin  made  an  urgent  argument  for  the  basing  of 
representation  upon  voters,  "  as  those  voters  are  determined  by  the 
States."  Mr.  Jehu  Baker  of  Illinois  objected  to  the  amendment, 
because  it  "  leaves  any  State  of  the  Union  perfectly  free  to  narrow 
her  suffrage  to  any  extent  she  pleases,  imposing  proprietary  and  other 
disqualifying  tests  and  strengthening  her  aristocratic  power  over  the 
people,  provided  only  she  steers  clear  of  a  test  based  on  race  or  color." 
Mr.  Ingersoll  of  Illinois  followed  the  speech  of  his  colleague,  Mr. 
Baker,  by  moving  to  add  to  the  Constitutional  amendment  these 
words :  "  and  no  State  within  this  Union  shall  prescribe  or  establish 
any  property  qualifications  which  may  or  shall  in  any  way  abridge 
the  elective  franchise."  Mr.  Jenckes  of  Rhode  Island  argued  against 
Mr.  Ingersoll's  amendment  as  needlessly  abridging  the  power  of  the 
States.  On  the  24th  of  January  Mr.  Lawrence  of  Ohio  moved  that 
"  the  pending  resolution  and  all  amendments  be  recommitted  to  the 
Committee  on  Reconstruction,  with  instructions  to  report  an  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution  which  shall,  first,  apportion  direct  taxation 


THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION.  197 

among  the  States  according  to  the  property  in  each,  and  second, 
apportion  the  representation  among  the  States  upon  the  basis  of  male 
voters  who  may  be  citizens  of  the  United  States." 

Mr.  Shellabarger  followed  his  colleague,  giving  objections  to  the 
amendment  as  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Reconstruction :  "  First, 
it  contemplates  and  provides  for  and  in  that  way  authorizes  the 
States  to  wholly  disfranchise  an  entire  race  of  people ;  second,  the 
moral  teaching  of  the  clause  offends  the  free  and  just  spirit  of 
the  age,  violates  the  foundation  principle  of  our  own  Government 
and  is  intrinsically  wrong  ;  third,  associated  with  that  clause  in  our 
Constitution  relating  to  the  States  being  republican  this  amend- 
ment makes  it  read  thus :  '  the  United  States  shall  guarantee  to 
every  State  in  this  Union  a  republican  form  of  government,  pro- 
vided, however,  that  a  government  shall  be  deemed  republican  when 
whole  races  of  its  people  are  disfranchised,  unrepresented  and 
ignored.' "  Mr.  Eliot  of  Massachusetts  moved  an  amendment  that 
representation  should  be  based  upon  the  whole  number  of  persons, 
"and  that  the  elective  franchise  shall  not  be  denied  or  abridged  in 
any  State  on  account  of  race  or  color." 

Mr.  Pike  of  Maine  made  a  strong  speech  against  the  amendment, 
the  spirit  of  which  was  in  favor  of  declaring  universal  suffrage.  He 
added  to  the  illustrations  already  given  of  the  inefficacy  of  the 
proposed  amendment  to  reach  the  desired  end,  one  of  special  force 
and  pertinency.  "  Suppose,"  said  he,  "  this  Constitutional  amend- 
ment to  be  in  full  force,  and  a  State  should  provide  that  the  right  of 
suffrage  should  not  be  exercised  by  any  person  who  had  been  a  slave 
or  who  was  the  descendant  of  a  slave,  whatever  his  race  or  color  ?  " 
He  suggested  that  it  was  "  a  serious  matter  to  tell  whether  this  sim- 
ple provision  would  not  be  sufficient  to  defeat  the  Constitutional 
amendment  which  we  here  so  laboriously  enact  and  submit  to  the 
States."  Mr.  Conkling  argued  that  "  the  amendment  we  are  propos- 
ing is  not  for  Greece  or  Rome,  or  anywhere  where  anybody  besides 
Africans  were  held  as  slaves.  It  is  to  operate  in  this  country,  where 
one  race,  and  only  one,  has  been  held  in  servitude."  Mr.  Pike  replied 
that  "  in  no  State  has  slavery  been  confined  to  one  race."  "  So  far," 
added  he,  "  as  I  am  acquainted  with  their  statutes,  slavery  has  not 
been  confined  to  the  African  race.  I  have  examined  the  matter  with 
some  care,  and  I  know  of  no  slave-statute  which  says  that  Africans 
alone  shall  be  slaves.  Well-authenticated  instances  exist  in  every 
slave  State,  where  men  of  Caucasian  descent,  of  Anglo-Saxon  blood, 


198  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

have  been  confined  in  slavery  and  they  and  their  posterity  held  as 
slaves,  so  that  not  only  were  free  blacks  found  everywhere  but  white 
slaves  abounded." 

On  the  29th  of  January  the  debate  closed,  and  the  resolutions 
originally  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Reconstruction,  together 
with  the  suggested  amendments,  were  again  referred  to  that  com- 
mittee. Especial  interest  was  taken  by  many  members  in  the  lan- 
guage proposed  by  Mr.  Schenck  of  Ohio :  "  Representatives  shall  be 
apportioned  among  the  several  States  which  may  be  included  within 
this  Union,  according  to  the  number  of  male  citizens  of  the  United 
States  over  twenty-one  years  of  age  having  the  qualifications  of 
electors  of  the  most  numerous  branch  of  the  Legislature ; "  and  also 
in  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Broomall  of  Pennsylvania,  providing  that 
"  when  the  elective  franchise  shall  be  denied  by  the  constitution  or 
laws  of  any  State,  to  any  proportion  of  its  male  citizens  over  the  age 
of  twenty-one  years,  the  same  proportion  of  its  entire  population 
shall  be  excluded  from  the  basis  of  representation."  Two  days  after- 
wards, on  the  31st  of  January,  Mr.  Stevens  reported  from  the  Joint 
Committee  on  Reconstruction  the  proposition  in  this  form  :  "  Repre- 
sentatives shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several  States  which  may 
be  included  within  this  Union  according  to  their  respective  numbers, 
counting  the  whole  number  pf  persons  in  each  State  —  excluding 
Indians  not  taxed ;  provided  that  whenever  the  elective  franchise  shall  be 
denied  or  abridged  in  any  State  on  account  of  race  or  color,  the  persons 
therein  of  such  race  or  color  shall  be  excluded  from  the  basis  of  represen- 
tation." Mr.  Schenck  submitted  his  amendment  basing  apportion- 
ment upon  the  number  of  male  citizens  of  the  United  States  who  are 
voters,  but  it  was  rejected  by  an  overwhelming  vote,  only  twenty- 
nine  of  the  entire  House  voting  in  the  affirmative.  The  amendment, 
as  reported  from  the  committee,  was  then  adopted, — yeas  120,  nays 
46.  It  was  substantially  a  party  division,  though  some  half-dozen 
Republicans  voted  in  the  negative. 

The  amendment  reached  the  Senate  on  the  thirty-first  day  of 
January  and  on  the  sixth  of  February  was  taken  up  for  consider- 
ation. Mr.  Fessenden,  chairman  of  the  Joint  Committee  on  Recon- 
struction, was  entitled  to  open  the  debate,  but  yielded  to  Mr.  Sum- 
ner.  Mr.  Sumner,  with  his  rigid  adherence  to  principle,  opposed  the 
amendment.  "  Knowing  as  I  do,"  said  he,  "  the  eminent  character 
of  the  committee  which  reports  this  amendment,  its  intelligence,  its 
patriotism  and  the  moral  instincts  by  which  it  is  moved,  I  am  at  a 


THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION.  199 

loss  to  understand  the  origin  of  a  proposition  which  seems  to  me 
nothing  else  than  another  compromise  of  human  rights,  as  if  the 
country  had  not  already  paid  enough  in  costly  treasure  and  more 
costly  blood  for  such  compromises  in  the  past."  He  declared  that 
he  was  "  painfully  impressed  by  the  discord  and  defilement  which 
the  amendment  would  introduce  into  the  Constitution."  He  quoted 
the  declaration  of  Madison  in  the  convention  of  1787,  that  it  was 
wrong  to  admit  into  the  Constitution  the  idea  of  property  in  man. 
"  Of  all  that  has  come  to  us  from  that  historic  convention,  where 
Washington  sat  as  President  and  Franklin  and  Hamilton  sat  as 
members,  there  is  nothing  having  so  much  of  imperishable  charm. 
It  was  wrong  to  admit  into  the  Constitution  the  idea  that  man  could 
hold  property  in  man.  Accordingly,  in  this  spirit  the  Constitution 
was  framed.  This  offensive  idea  was  not  admitted.  The  text  at 
least  was  kept  blameless.  And  now,  after  generations  have  passed, 
surrounded  by  the  light  of  Christian  truth  and  in  the  very  blaze  of 
human  freedom,  it  is  proposed  to  admit  into  the  Constitution  the 
twin  idea  of  inequality  in  rights,  and  thus  openly  set  at  naught 
the  first  principles  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  the  guaran- 
tee of  republican  government  itself,  while  you  blot  out  a  whole  race 
politically.  For  some  time  we  have  been  carefully  expunging  from 
the  statute-books  the  word  4  white,'  and  now  it  is  proposed  to  insert 
into  the  Constitution  itself  a  distinction  of  color." 

Upon  this  foundation  Mr.  Sumner  spoke  at  great  length,  his 
speech  filling  forty-one  columns  of  the  Congressional  Globe.  It 
would  hardly  be  proper  indeed  to  call  it  a  speech.  It  was  a  great 
historic  review  of  the  foundation  of  the  Republics  of  the  world,  an 
exhaustive  analysis  of  what  constituted  a  true  republic,  closing  with 
an  eloquent  plea  for  the  ballot  for  the  freedmen.  He  demanded  "  en- 
franchisement for  the  sake  of  the  public  security  and  public  faith." 
He  pleaded  for  the  ballot  as  "  the  great  guarantee."  The  ballot,  he 
declared,  "  is  a  peacemaker,  a  schoolmaster,  a  protector."  "  Show 
me,"  said  he,  as  he  approached  the  conclusion  of  his  speech  —  "  show 
me  a  creature  with  erect  countenance  and  looking  to  heaven,  made  in 
the  image  of  God,  and  I  show  you  a  man  who,  of  whatever  country 
or  race  —  whether  darkened  by  equatorial  sun  or  blanched  with  the 
northern  cold  —  is  an  equal  with  you  before  the  heavenly  Father, 
and  equally  with  you  entitled  to  all  the  rights  of  human  nature." 
.  .  .  "  You  cannot  deny  these  rights  without  impiety.  God  has 
so  linked  the  National  welfare  with  National  duty  that  you  cannot 


200  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

deny  these  rights  without  peril  to  the  Republic.  It  is  not  enough 
that  you  have  given  liberty.  By  the  same  title  that  we  claim  liberty 
do  we  claim  equality  also.  .  .  .  The  Roman  Cato,  after  declaring 
his  belief  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  added,  that  if  this  were  an 
error  it  was  an  error  that  he  loved ;  and  now,  declaring  my  belief  in 
liberty  and  equality  as  the  God-given  birthright  of  all  men,  let  me 
say  in  the  same  spirit,  if  this  be  an  error  it  is  an  error  which  I  love ; 
if  this  be  a  fault  it  is  a  fault  which  I  shall  be  slow  to  renounce  ;  if 
this  be  an  illusion  it  is  an  illusion  which  I  pray  may  wrap  the  world 
in  its  angelic  form." 

Mr.  Sumner's  speech  may  be  regarded  as  an  exhaustive  and  mas- 
terly essay,  unfolding  and  illustrating  the  doctrine  of  human  rights. 
As  such  it  remains  a  treatise  of  great  value ;  but  as  a  political  argu- 
ment calculated  to  shape  and  determine  the  legislation  of  Congress, 
it  was  singularly  inapt.  As  a  counter-proposition  he  submitted  a 
preamble  and  joint  resolution  in  these  words :  "  Whereas  it  is  pro- 
vided by  the  Constitution  that  the  United  States  shall  guarantee  to 
every  State  of  the  Union  a  republican  form  of  government,  and 
whereas,  by  reason  of  the  failure  of  certain  States  to  maintain  gov- 
ernments which  Congress  might  recognize,  it  has  become  the  duty 
of  the  United  States,  standing  in  the  place  of  guarantor,"  .  .  . 
—  "Therefore  be  it  resolved,  that  there  shall  be  no  oligarchy,  aris- 
tocracy, caste  or  monopoly  invested  with  peculiar  privileges  or 
powers,  and  there  shall  be  no  denial  of  rights,  civil  or  political,  on 
account  of  race  or  color  within  the  limits  of  the  United  States  or  the 
jurisdiction  thereof,  but  all  persons  therein  shall  be  equal  before  the 
law,  whether  in  the  court-room  or  at  the  ballot-box,  and  this  statute, 
made  in  pursuance  of  the  Constitution,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of 
the  land,  any  thing  in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding." 

Mr.  Fessenden  replied  to  Mr.  Sumner  in  an  elaborate  speech  in 
justification  of  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  Reconstruction  Com- 
mittee. His  argument  was  marked  with  all  his  peculiar  ability,  and 
the  two  speeches  contain  within  themselves  the  fullest  exposition  of 
the  difference  in  mental  quality  of  the  two  eminent  New-England 
statesmen  who  were  so  long  rivals  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States.  Mr.  Fessenden  was  above  all  things  practical;  he  was  un- 
willing at  any  time  to  engage  in  legislation  that  was  not  effective 
and  direct ,  he  had  no  sympathy  with  mere  declarations,  was  abso- 
lutely free  from  the  vanity  so  often  exhibited  in  legislative  bodies, 


FESSENDEN  REPLIES  TO  SUMNER.  201 

of  speaking  when  there  was  no  question  before  the  body  for  decision, 
or  of  submitting  resolutions  merely  in  response  to  a  popular  senti- 
ment, without  effecting  any  valuable  result.  In  short,  Congress  was 
with  him  a  law-making  body.  It  met  for  that  business  and  so  far 
as  he  could  direct  its  proceedings,  Mr.  Fessenden,  as  chairman  at 
different  times  of  leading  committees,  held  it  to  its  work.  He  was 
felicitous  with  his  pen  beyond  the  rhetorical  power  of  Mr.  Sumner, 
though  not  so  deeply  read,  nor  so  broad  in  scholarship  and  general 
culture. 

He  made  an  able  argument  for  the  pending  amendment  as  the 
most  effective  mode  of  bringing  the  South  to  do  justice  to  the  col- 
ored race.  He  believed  that  if  the  Southern  States  should  feel  that 
they  could  derive  larger  political  power  in  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  by  admitting  colored  men  to  the  elective  franchise, 
they  would  in  time  conclude  to  do  so ;  and  doing  so  they  would 
be  compelled  in  the  mere  process  to  realize  their  indebtment  to  that 
race,  and  thus  from  self-interest,  if  not  from  a  sense  of  justice,  would 
extend  equal  protection  to  the  whole  population.  Mr.  Fessenden 
could  not  refrain  from  some  good-natured  ridicule  of  the  declaratory 
resolutions  which  Mr.  Sumner  had  offered.  "Sir,"  said  he,  "does 
the  Constitution  authorize  oligarchy,  aristocracy,  caste  or  monopoly? 
Not  at  all.  Are  you  not  as  safe  under  the  Constitution  as  you  are 
under  an  Act  of  Congress  ?  Why  re-enact  the  Constitution  merely 
to  put  it  in  a  bill  ?  What  do  you  accomplish  by  it  ?  What  remedy 
does  it  afford  ?  It  is  merely  as  if  it  read  in  this  way :  4  Whereas  it 
is  provided  in  the  Constitution  that  the  United  States  shall  guarantee 
to  every  State  of  the  Union  a  republican  form  of  government,  there- 
fore we  declare  that  there  shall  be  a  republican  form  of  government, 
and  nothing  else.'  That  is  all  there  is  of  it.  Of  what  particular  use 
it  is  as  a  bill,  practically,  is  more  than  I  can  tell.  I  presume  the 
Honorable  Senator  from  Massachusetts  will  very  easily  explain  it, 
but  it  reminds  me  (I  say  it  with  all  due  respect  to  him)  of  a  poetical 
travesty  of  a  law  argument  by  an  eminent  lawyer  of  his  own  State, 
running  somewhat  in  this  way :  — 

'  Let  my  opponents  do  their  worst, 
Still  my  first  point  is  point  the  first, 
Which  fully  proves  my  case,  because 
All  statute  laws  are  statute  laws.' 

The  sequitur  is  obvious,  —  the  case  is  proved  because,  inasmuch  as 


202  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

the  Constitution  provides  that  there  shall  be  no  aristocracy,  no  oli- 
garchy, no  caste,  no  monopoly,  therefore  Congress  has  resolved  that 
there  shall  not  be  any  thing  of  the  kind." 

Mr.  Fessenden  would  not  admit  the  essential  justice  of  the  argu- 
ment which  Mr.  Sumner  made  in  behalf  of  universal  suffrage,  and 
showed  that  he  was  not  consistent  in  the  ground  which  he  took. 
"  While,"  said  he,  "  the  Honorable  Senator  from  Massachusetts  argued 
with  great  force  that  every  man  should  have  the  right  of  suffrage, 
his  argument,  connected  with  the  other  principle  that  he  laid  down, 
and  the  application  of  it,  —  that  taxation  and  representation  should 
go  together,  —  would  apply  with  equal  force  and  equal  equity  to 
woman  as  to  man ;  but  I  notice  that  the  Honorable  Senator  carefully 
and  skillfully  evaded  that  part  of  the  proposition.  If  a  necessary 
connection  between  taxation  and  representation  applies  to  the  indi- 
viduals in  a  State,  and  that  is  the  application  which  the  Honorable 
Senator  made  of  it,  —  an  application  never  made  by  our  ancestors, 
but  applied  by  them  to  communities  and  not  to  individuals,  —  I  should 
like  him  to  tell  me  why,  according  to  his  own  argument,  every  female 
that  is  taxed  should  not  be  allowed  to  have  the  right  of  suffrage." 

"There  are,"  said  Mr.  Fessenden,  "but  two  propositions  to  be 
considered  in  the  pending  amendment :  one  is  whether  you  will  base 
representation  on  voters,  and  the  other  is  the  proposition  which  is 
before  the  Senate.  I  suppose  the  proposition  to  base  representation 
upon  actual  voters  would  commend  itself  to  the  Honorable  Senator 
from  Massachusetts.  I  believe  I  have  in  my  desk  a  proposition  he 
made  to  amend  the  Constitution  (laid  before  the  Senate  so  early  in 
the  session  that  the  bell  which  called  us  together  had  hardly  struck 
its  note  before  it  was  laid  upon  the  table),  in  which  he  proposed  that 
representation  in  the  United  States  should  be  based  on  voters.  Let 
me  ask  him  if  that  does  not  leave  in  the  hands  of _  the  States  the 
same  power  that  exists  there  now,  and  has  existed  heretofore  ?  What 
is  the  difference  ?  How  does  the  Honorable  Senator  find  the  pend- 
ing proposition  so  objectionable,  and  the  one  he  offered  so  suitable 
to  accomplish  the  purpose  which  he  desires  to  accomplish  ?  The  two 
propositions,  in  respect  to  the  point  upon  which  the  gentleman  has 
made  his  speech,  are  identical  in  effect." 

The  Constitutional  amendment  was  debated  earnestly  until  the 
9th  of  March.  One  of  the  boldest  and  most  notable  speeches  was 
made  by  Mr.  Henderson  of  Missouri,  who  surprised  the  Senate  by 
taking  a  more  radical  ground  than  the  Reconstruction  Committee. 


THE  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT.  203 

He  moved  the  following  as  a  substitute  for  the  committee's  proposi- 
tion to  amend  the  Constitution:  "JVo  State,  in  prescribing  the  qualifi- 
cations requisite  for  electors  therein,  shall  discriminate  against  any 
person  on  account  of  color  or  race"  Mr.  Henderson,  though  repre- 
senting a  State  lately  slave-holding,  was  in  advance  of  the  majority 
of  his  associates  from  the  free  States ;  but  he  defended  his  amend- 
ment with  great  ability.  He  said,  "  I  am  aware  that  the  Senate  will 
vote  it  down  now.  Let  them  vote  it  down.  It  will  not  be  five  years 
from  to-day  before  this  body  will  vote  for  it.  You  cannot  get  along 
without  it.  You  may  adopt  the  other  proposition,  but  the  States 
will  not  accept  it.  The  Northern  States  in  my  judgment  will  not 
accept  it,  because  they  will  misapprehend  the  meaning  of  it."  When 
the  vote  was  reached  ten  senators,  including  Mr.  Henderson,  sus- 
tained his  proposition  in  favor  of  negro  suffrage.  The  resolution  of 
the  Reconstruction  Committee,  after  several  attempts  to  modify  it, 
came  to  a  vote,  —  yeas  25,  nays  22.  Two-thirds  being  required  the 
amendment  was  defeated.  A  reconsideration  was  made  for  the  pur- 
pose of  resuming  the  discussion,  but  the  resolution  was  never  taken 
up  again,  having  become  merged  in  a  new  proposition. 

Pending  the  consideration  of  the  Constitutional  amendment  so 
long  before  Congress,  the  Reconstruction  Committee  reported,  and 
both  Houses  of  Congress  agreed  to  adopt,  a  resolution  declaring  that 
"No  senator  or  representative  shall  be  admitted  into  either  branch 
of  Congress  from  any  of  said  States  until  Congress  shall  have  de- 
clared such  State  entitled  to  representation."  It  was  the  pressure 
of  the  State  of  Tennessee  for  admission  which  brought  about  this 
declaration.  Her  condition  was  regarded  as  peculiar,  and  her  sena- 
tors and  representatives  were  seeking  admission  to  their  appropriate 
bodies,  claiming  exemption  from  the  general  requirements  of  the 
Reconstruction  policy,  because  they  had,  without  the  aid  of  Congress, 
established  a  loyal  State  government.  This  was  regarded  as  totally 
inexpedient,  and  the  committee  reported  the  resolution,  as  they 
declared,  "  in  order  to  close  agitation  upon  a  question  which  seems 
likely  to  disturb  the  action  of  the  Government,  as  well  as  to  quiet 
the  uncertainty  which  is  agitating  the  minds  of  the  people  of  the 
eleven  States  which  have  been  declared  to  be  in  insurrection."  The 
objection  to  this  course  was,  that  in  a  certain  degree  it  involved  a 
renunciation  on  the  part  of  both  Senate  and  House  of  their  right  to 
be  the  exclusive  judge  of  the  qualification  of  members  of  their  re- 
spective bodies.  Mr.  Stevens  was  the  author  of  the  resolution  and 


204  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

it  really  included,  as  its  essential  basis,  the  view  which  he  had  so 
strenuously  insisted  upon,  that  the  insurrectionary  States  must  be 
treated  by  Congress,  in  all  that  related  to  their  restoration  to  the 
Union,  as  if  they  were  new  States  seeking  admission  for  the  first 
time.  Instead  of  each  House  acting  as  the  judge  of  the  qualifica- 
tions of  its  members,  both  Houses  agreed  that  neither  should  take  a 
step  in  that  regard  until  there  had  been  common  action  declaring  the 
State  entitled  to  representation.  A  similar  proposition  at  the  open- 
ing of  the  session  had  been  defeated  in  the  Senate :  its  ready  adop- 
tion now  showed  how  the  contest  between  the  President  and  Congress 
was  driving  the  latter  day  by  day  to  more  radical  positions. 

After  the  defeat  in  the  Senate  of  the  amendment  touching  repre- 
sentation, and  the  postponement  by  the  House  of  another  amendment 
reported  from  the  Committee  on  Reconstruction  touching  the  pro- 
tection of  citizens  in  their  rights  and  immunities,  there  was  a  general 
cessation  of  discussion  on  the  question  of  changing  the  Constitution, 
and  a  common  understanding  in  both  branches  to  await  the  formal 
and  final  report  of  the  Committee.  That  report  was  made  by  Mr. 
Stevens  on  Monday,  the  30th  of  April.1  It  consisted  of  a  joint  reso- 
lution proposing  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 

1  The  following  is  the  form  in  which  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitu- 
tion (consolidated  from  various  propositions  previously  discussed)  was  originally  re- 
ported from  the  Committee  on  Reconstruction  by  Mr.  Stevens  :  — 

"ARTICLE  XIV. 

"  SECT.  1.  No  State  shall  make  or  enforce  any  law  which  shall  abridge  the  privi- 
leges or  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  ;  nor  shall  any  State  deprive  any 
person  of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without  due  process  of  law;  nor  deny  to  any  person 
within  its  jurisdiction  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws. 

"  SECT  2.  Representatives  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several  States  which 
may  be  included  within  this  Union  according  to  their  respective  numbers,  counting  the 
whole  number  of  persons  in  each  State,  excluding  Indians  not  taxed.  But  whenever  in 
any  State  the  elective  franchise  shall  be  denied  to  any  portion  of  its  male  citizens  not 
less  than  twenty-one  years  of  age,  or  in  any  way  abridged,  except  for  participation  in 
rebellion  or  other  crime,  the  basis  of  representation  in  such  State  shall  be  reduced  in  the 
proportion  which  the  number  of  male  citizens  shall  bear  to  the  whole  number  of  such 
male  citizens  not  less  than  twenty-one  years  of  age. 

"  SECT.  3.  Until  the  fourth  day  of  July  in  the  year  1870,  all  persons  who  voluntarily 
adhered  to  the  late  insurrection,  giving  it  aid  and  comfort,  shall  be  excluded  from  the 
right  to  vote  for  representatives  in  Congress  and  for  electors  for  President  and  Vice- 
President  of  the  United  States. 

"  SECT.  4.  Neither  the  United  States  nor  any  State  shall  assume  or  pay  any  debt  or 
obligation  already  incurred,  or  which  may  hereafter  be  incurred,  in  aid  of  insurrection 
or  war  against  the  United  States,  or  any  claim  for  compensation  for  loss  of  involuntary 
service  or  labor. 

"  SF.CT.  5.  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce,  by  appropriate  legislation,  the 
provisions  of  this  article." 


DEBATE  ON  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT.  205 

States,  in  which  were  consolidated  under  one  article  the  several 
amendments  which  had  been  proposed,  and  which  in  their  aggregate, 
as  finally  shaped,  made  up  the  famous  Fourteenth  Amendment.  In 
addition  to  this  was  a  bill  reciting  the  desirability  of  restoring  the 
lately  revolted  States  to  full  participation  in  all  political  rights,  and 
enacting  in  substance  that  when  the  Constitutional  amendment 
should  be  agreed  to  by  them,  their  senators  and  representatives  in 
Congress  might  be  admitted.  A  further  bill  was  reported,  declaring 
certain  persons  who  had  been  engaged  in  rebellion  to  be  ineligible  to 
office  under  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

The  debate  on  the  consolidated  Fourteenth  Amendment  was 
opened  on  the  8th  of  May  by  Mr.  Stevens.  The  House  had  agreed 
that  all  speeches  should  be  limited  to  half  an  hour.  The  debate 
was  therefore  condensed  and  direct.  Mr.  Stevens  complained 
of  the  Senate  for  having  defeated  the  amendment  relating  to  repre- 
sentation, and  though  assenting  to  that  which  was  now  reported  by 
the  committee,  thought  it  inferior  to,  and  less  effective  than,  the  one 
which  had  failed.  The  third  section  he  thought  too  lenient.  "  There 
is,"  said  he,  "a  morbid  sensibility  sometimes  called  mercy,  which 
affects  a  few  of  all  classes  from  ^the  priest  to  the  clown,  which  has 
more  sympathy  for  the  murderer  on  the  gallows  than  for  his  victim. 
I  hope  I  have  a  heart  as  capable  of  feeling  for  human  woe  as  others. 
I  have  long  since  wished  that  capital  punishment  were  abolished. 
But  I  never  dreamed  that  all  punishment  could  be  dispensed  with  in 
human  society.  Anarchy,  treason  and  violence  would  reign  triumph- 
ant. The  punishment  now  prescribed  is  the  mildest  ever  inflicted 
upon  traitors.  I  might  not  consent  to  the  extreme  severity  pro- 
nounced upon  them  by  a  provisional  Governor  of  Tennessee  -T-.  I  mean 
the  late  lamented  Andrew  Johnson  of  blessed  memory  —  but  I  would 
have  increased  the  severity  in  this  section.  ...  In  my  judgment  we 
do  not  sufficiently  protect  the  loyal  men  in  the  rebel  States  from  the 
vindictive  persecutions  of  their  rebel  neighbors." 

Mr.  Elaine  of  Maine  called  the  attention  of  Mr.  Stevens  to  the 
fact  that  on  the  17th  of  July,  1862,  Congress  had  passed  an  Act 
of  which  the  following  was  one  section:  "That  the  President  is 
hereby  authorized,  at  any  time  hereafter,  by  proclamation,  to  extend 
to  persons  who  may  have  participated  in  the  existing  rebellion  in  any 
State  or  part  thereof,  pardon  and  amnesty,  with  such  exceptions,  at 
such  times  and  on  such  conditions  as  he  may  deem  expedient  for  the 
public  welfare."  "  Under  and  in  pursuance  of  this  Act,"  said  Mr. 


206  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Elaine,  "  the  late  President  Lincoln  issued  a  proclamation  granting  a 
great  number  of  pardons  upon  certain  specified  conditions,  and  sub- 
sequently President  Johnson  issued  his  celebrated  amnesty  proclama- 
tion granting  pardons  to  certain  specified  classes  in  the  South  that  had 
participated  in  the  Rebellion.  .  .  .  Do  we  not  by  the  proposed  action 
place  ourselves  in  the  attitude  of  taking  back  by  Constitutional 
amendment  that  which  has  been  given  by  Act  of  Congress,  and  by 
Presidential  proclamation  issued  in  pursuance  of  the  law  ?  and  will 
not  this  be  justly  subjected  to  the  charge  of  bad  faith  on  the  part  of 
the  Federal  Government  ?  " 

Mr.  Stevens  replied  that  a  pardon,  whether  by  the  President  hav- 
ing the  power  or  specially  by  Act  of  Parliament  or  Congress,  extin- 
guishes the  crime.  "  After  that,"  said  he,  "  there  is  no  such  crime 
in  the  individual.  A  man  steals  and  he  is  pardoned.  He  is  not  then 
a  thief  and  you  cannot  call  him  a  thief,  or  if  you  do  you  are  liable  to 
an  action  for  slander.  None  of  those  who  have  been  fully  pardoned 
are  affected  by  this  provision." 

Mr.  Elaine  replied  that  the  Constitutional  amendment  would  be 
held  to  override  the  President's  proclamation,  being  organic  in  its 
nature  and  therefore  supreme.  "vThat,"  said  Mr.  Elaine,  "is  my 
understanding  and  that,  it  seems  to  me,  would  be  the  legal  construc- 
tion ;  but  if  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  is  correct,  then  I  main- 
tain that  it  is  the  bounden  duty  of  this  House  to  make  the  language 
so  plain  that  he  who  runs  may  read  —  that  there  may  be  no  doubt 
about  its  construction." 

Mr.  Garfield  said  that  "  the  point  made  by  the  gentleman  from 
Maine  shows  that,  whatever  may  be  the  intention  of  the  committee 
or  of  the  House,  the  section  is  at  least  susceptible  of  double  con- 
struction. Some  may  say  that  it  revokes  and  nullifies  in  part  the 
pardons  that  have  already  been  granted  in  accordance -with  law  and 
the  proclamation  of  the  President.  Others  may  say  that  it  does  not 
apply  to  the  rebels  who  have  been  pardoned." 

Mr.  Stevens  interrupted  Mr.  Garfield  and  said,  "  I-  was  not  per- 
haps sufficiently  explicit  in  what  I  stated  in  answer  to  the  interroga- 
tory of  the  gentleman  from  Maine.  I  admit  that  a  pardon  removes 
all  liability  to  punishment  for  a  crime  committed,  but  there  is  a  vast 
difference  between  punishment  for  a  crime  and  withholding  a  privi- 
lege. While  I  admit  that  the  pardon  will  be  full  and  operative  so 
far  as  the  crime  is  concerned,  it  offers  no  other  advantage  than  an 
exemption  from  punishment  for  the  crime  itself." 


FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT  IN  THE  SENATE.  207 

Mr.  Garfield,  resuming,  said  that  he  was  about  to  remark  that 
"  if  the  section  does  not  apply  to  those  who  have  been  pardoned  then 
it  would  apply  to  so  small  a  number  of  people  as  to  make  it  of  no 
practical  value,  for  the  excepted  classes  in  the  general  system  of  par- 
dons form  a  very  small  fraction  of  the  rebels." 

Mr.  Boyer,  a  Democratic  member  from  Pennsylvania,  declared 
that  the  effect  of  the  amendment  if  adopted  would  be  to  disfran- 
chise for  a  period  of  four  years  nine-tenths  of  the  voting  population 
of  eleven  States. 

The  point  was  subsequently  alluded  to  by  the  leading  lawyers  of 
the  House,  with  the  general  admission  that,  whatever  might  have 
been  the  implied  pledge  of  the  President  or  of  Congress,  or  whatever 
might  be  the  effect  of  the  pardon  of  the  President,  it  did  not  in  any 
way  limit  the  power  of  the  people  to  amend  their  Constitution.  To 
the  proposition  to  exclude  those  who  had  been  engaged  in  the 
Rebellion  from  the  right  of  suffrage  for  National  office  until  1870, 
there  was  strong  hostility  from  two  classes  —  one  class  opposing  it 
because  it  was  a  needless  proscription,  and  the  other,  equally  large, 
because  it  did  not  go  far  enough  in  proscribing  those  who  had  been 
guilty  of  rebellion.  The  amendment  came  to  a  vote  on  the  10th  of 
May  and  the  result  was  128  ayes  to  37  noes.  Not  a  single  Republi- 
can vote  was  cast  against  it.  Mr.  Raymond  voted  in  the  affirmative, 
and  his  ringing  response  elicited  loud  applause  both  on  the  floor  and 
in  the  galleries. 

When  the  Senate  proceeded  to  consider  the  Constitutional  amend- 
ment it  soon  became  evident  that  it  could  not  be  adopted  in  the  form 
in  which  it  came  from  the  House.  The  first  important  change 
was  suggested  by  Mr.  Howard  of  Michigan  on  behalf  of  the  Senate 
members  of  the  Joint  Committee  on  Reconstruction.  He  proposed  to 
prefix  these  words  to  the  first  clause  of  the  amendment :  "  All  per- 
sons born  in  the  United  States,  and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  there- 
of, are  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  States  wherein  they 
reside."  Mr.  Doolittle  moved  to  insert  "  excluding  Indians  not 
taxed,"  but  Mr.  Howard  made  a  pertinent  reply  that  "  Indians  born 
within  the  limits  of  the  United  States,  who  maintain  their  tribal  re- 
lations, are  not  in  the  sense  of  this  amendment  born  subject  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  United  States"  Mr.  Doolittle's  amendment  was 
supported  by  only  ten  senators  on  a  call  of  the  ayes  and  noes,  and 
the  amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Howard  was  then  agreed  to  without 
division.  Mr.  Howard  next  proposed  to  amend  the  second  section 


208  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

of  the  constitutional  amendment  by  striking  out  the  word  "  citizens  " 
and  inserting  "  inhabitants,  being  citizens  of  the  United  States." 
This  was  done,  as  Mr.  Fessenden  explained,  "  to  prevent  a  State  from 
saying  that  though  a  person  is  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  he  is  not 
a  citizen  of  the  State,  and  to  make  it  conform  to  the  first  clause  as 
just  amended." 

Mr.  Howard  offered  next  to  change  the  third  clause  as  it  came 
from  the  House  by  inserting  a  substitute,  which  is  precisely  that 
which  became  formally  incorporated  in  the  amendment  as  it  passed. 
Mr.  Hendricks  of  Indiana  moved  to  amend  by  inserting  after  the 
word  "shall"  the  words  "during  the  term  of  his  office,"  so  as  to 
read,  "  shall,  during  the  term  of  his  office,  have  engaged  in  insurrec- 
tion or  rebellion."  Mr.  Hendricks  understood  "  the  idea  upon  which 
this  section  rests,  to  be  that  men  who  held  office,  and  upon  assuming 
the  office  took  the  oath  prescribed  by  the  Constitution,  became  obli- 
gated by  that  oath  to  stand  by  the  Constitution  and  the  oath,"  and 
that  "  going  into  the  Rebellion  was  not  only  a  breach  of  their  alle- 
giance but  a  breach  of  their  oath,"  and  that  "persons  who  had  vio- 
lated the  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  ought 
not  to  be  allowed  to  hold  any  office."  Mr.  Howard  hoped  the 
amendment  would  not  be  adopted.  "  If,"  said  he,  "  I  understand  the 
senator  from  Indiana  rightly,  he  holds  that  although  a  person  may 
have  taken  that  Constitutional  oath,  if  he  has  not  committed  insur- 
rection during  the  continuance  of  the  term  of  his  office,  but  commits 
that  act  after  the  expiration  of  that  term,  the  previous  taking  of  the 
oath  by  him  adds  to  the  act  no  additional  moral  guilt.  I  do  not 
concur  with  him  in  that  view.  It  seems  to  me  that  where  a  person 
has  taken  a  solemn  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  there  is  a  fair  implication  that  he  cannot  afterwards  commit 
an  act  which  in  its  effect  would  destroy  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  without  incurring  at  least  the  moral  guilt  of  per- 
jury." 

Mr.  Reverdy  Johnson  supported  Mr.  Hendricks's  amendment. 
"  The  effect  of  the  amendment  of  the  committee,"  said  he,  "  would 
be  to  embrace  nine-tenths,  perhaps,  of  the  gentlemen  of  the  South, 
to  disfranchise  them  until  Congress  shall  think  proper,  by  a  majority 
of  two-thirds  of  each  branch,  to  remove  the  restriction.  If  the  sug- 
gestion of  the  senator  from  Indiana  is  not  adopted,"  continued  Mr. 
Johnson,  "  then  all  who  have  at  any  time  held  any  office  under  the 
United  States,  or  who  have  been  in  any  branch  of  the  Legislature 


EFEECT  OF  THE  PRESIDENT'S  PARDON.  209 

of  a  State,  which  they  could  not  be  without  taking  the  oath  required 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  are  to  be  excluded  from 
holding  the  office  of  senator  or  representative,  or  that  of  an  elector 
for  President  and  Vice-President,  or  any  office,  civil  or  military,  un- 
der the  United  States."  Mr.  Fessenden  reminded  the  senator  from 
Maryland  that  the  provision,  as  proposed  by  the  committee,  included 
exactly  those  classes  to  whom  the  obligation  of  an  oath  to  support 
the  Constitution  was  prescribed  in  the  sixth  article  of  the  Constitution, 
namely,  "  Senators  and  representatives  and  the  members  of  the  sev- 
eral State  Legislatures,  and  all  executive  and  judicial  officers,  both 
of  the  United  States  and  the  several  States,  shall  be  bound  by  oath 
or  affirmation  to  support  this  Constitution." 

Mr.  Sherman  of  Ohio  pointed  out  that  the  amendment  of  Mr. 
Hendricks  would  exclude  from  the  operation  of  the  section  those 
who  had  left  the  army  of  the  United  States  to  join  the  Rebellion. 
Mr.  Hendricks's  amendment  received  but  eight  votes  in  the  Senate, 
falling  short  of  the  admitted  Administration  strength.  Mr.  Reverdy 
Johnson  moved  to  strike  out  the  words  which  included  members  of 
the  State  Legislatures,  but  the  amendment  secured  only  ten  votes. 
He  also  moved  to  strike  out  the  words  "  having  previously  taken," 
and  insert  "  at  any  time  within  ten  years  preceding  the  1st  of  Jan- 
uary, 1861,  had  taken ; "  and  this  also  received  but  ten  votes.  Mr. 
Van  Winkle  moved  to  amend  so  that  a  majority  of  all  the  members 
elected  to  each  House  should  be  empowered  to  remove  the  disability, 
instead  of  two-thirds  as  required  by  the  amendment.  This  also 
received  but  ten  votes. 

In  further  discussion  of  the  extent  to  which  the  pardon  of  the 
President  goes,  Mr.  Reverdy  Johnson  cited  a  case  which  had  just 
been  argued  by  himself  and  others  but  was  not  yet  decided,  in  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  as  to  whether  an  attorney  in 
that  court  could  be  bound  to  take  the  ironclad  oath  as  prescribed 
by  Act  of  Congress,  January  24,  1865.  He  had  no  doubt,  he  said, 
that  the  operation  of  the  pardon  was  to  clear  the  party  pardoned 
from  the  obligation  to  take  that  oath.  The  case  referred  to  was 
that  since  so  widely  known  as  ex  parte  Garland,  and  decided  by  the 
Supreme  Court  adversely  to  the  Constitutionality  of  the  statute. 
Mr.  Howe  of  Wisconsin  interrupted  the  senator  from  Maryland  and 
asked  him  whether  he  knew  "  of  any  authority  which  has  gone  to 
the  extent  of  declaring  that  either  an  amnesty  or  a  pardon  can  im- 
pose any  limitation  whatever  upon  the  power  of  the  people  of  the 
VOL.  II.  1 


210  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

United  States,  through  an  amendment  to  their  Constitution,  to  fix 
the  qualifications  of  officers."  Mr.  Johnson  replied,  "  That  is  not  the 
question  to  which  I  spoke.  It  is  quite  another  inquiry.  I  was 
speaking  of  the  operation  of  a  statute" 

Mr.  Doolittle  also  answered  his  colleague  by  saying,  "  I  know  it 
may  be  said  that  by  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  which  is  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land,  you  can  annul  all  existing  rights.  You 
could,  perhaps,  by  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  enact  a  pro- 
vision which  would  Deprive  individual  citizens  of  their  property,  and 
vest  the  whole  of  it  in  the  Government  of  a  State  or  in  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States.  You  might,  perhaps,  by  a  Constitutional 
amendment,  pass  a  bill  of  attainder  by  which  certain  men  would  be 
sentenced  to  death  and  to  corruption  of  blood.  But,  sir,  would  it 
be  right?  That  is  the  question."  Mr.  Doolittle  was  discussing  it  on 
the  ground  of  its  moral  rightfulness  and  not  upon  the  ground  of  the 
power  of  the  people  to  amend  their  Constitution.  An  attempt  was 
made  to  insert  the  word  "voluntarily"  in  the  amendment,  so  that 
only  those  svould  be  under  disabilities  who  had  voluntarily  taken 
part  in  the  Rebellion ;  but  this  received  only  ten  votes.  The  Senate 
rejected  it  for  the  obvious  reason  that  it  would  open  the  entire 
amendment  to  evasion. 

The  amendment,  as  supported  by  Mr.  Howard,  was  finally  agreed 
to  with  only  ten  votes  in  the  negative.  Mr.  Hendricks,  in  lieu  of  the 
amendment  on  the  subject  of  representation,  moved  to  add  a  clause 
excluding  two-fifths  of  "  such  persons  as  have  been  discharged  from 
involuntary  servitude  since  the  year  1861,  and  to  whom  the  elective 
franchise  may  be  denied."  He  did  this  in  order  that  representation 
should  be  maintained  on  the  same  numerical  basis  that  existed  before 
the  war.  The  amendment  was  rejected  without  a  division.  Mr. 
Doolittle  offered  an  amendment  on  the  subject  of  representation, 
embodying  the  two  propositions  of  making  voters  the  basis  of  repre- 
sentation and  providing  that  "  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among 
the  several  States  according  to  the  value  of  the  real  and  personal 
taxable  property  situated  in  each  State,  not  belonging  to  the  State 
or  to  the  United  States;"  but  after  elaborate  debate  it  received 
only  seven  votes.  On  motion  of  Mr.  Williams  of  Oregon  the  amend- 
ment to  section  two  was  still  further  amended  by  substituting  the 
words  "  the  right  to  vote "  for  "  elective  franchise,"  as  already 
agreed  to.  Mr.  Clarke  of  New  Hampshire,  who  had  shown  through- 
out the  discussion  great  aptness  at  draughting  Constitutional  pro- 


EFFECT  OF  THE  PRESIDENT'S  PARDOX.  211 

visions  in  appropriate  language,  now  moved  to  substitute  for  section 
four,  which  had  gone  through  various  mutations  not  necessary  to 
recount  here,  the  precise  section  as  it  now  stands  in  the  Constitu- 
tion. 

In  the  course  of  the  discussion  Mr.  Doolittle  had  moved  that  in 
imposing  political  disabilities,  those  should  be  excepted  "  who  have 
duly  received  pardon  and  amnesty  under  the  Constitution  and  laws." 
He  had  just  admitted  the  broadest  possible  power  of  a  Constitutional 
amendment  duly  adopted,  and,  recognizing  that  the  amendment  as  it 
stood  would  certainly  include  those  who  had  received  pardon  from 
the  President,  desired  to  avert  that  result.  His  amendment  was  very 
briefly  debated  and  on  a  call  of  the  ayes  and  noes  received  only  ten 
votes.  The  effect  of  this  vote  unmistakably  settled,  in  the  judgment 
of  the  law-making  power  of  the  Government,  that  the  operation  of 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment  would  not  in  the  least  degree  be  affected 
by  the  President's  pardon.  Before  the  proposed  amendment  of  Mr. 
Doolittle,  Mr.  Saulsbury  had  tested  the  sense  of  the  Senate  practi- 
cally on  the  same  point,  by  moving  to  make  the  clause  of  the  amend- 
ment read  thus:  "Congress  may  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  each 
House  and  the  President  may  by  the  exercise  of  the  pardoning  power, 
remove  such  disabilities ; "  but  it  was  Rejected  by  a  large  majority, 
and  every  proposition  to  permit  the  pardon  of  the  President  to  affect 
the  disabilities  prescribed  by  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  in  any  way 
whatever  was  promptly  overruled. 

As  a  result  of  this  decision,  Southern  men  who,  under  the  Four- 
teenth Amendment,  had  incurred  disabilities  by  reason  of  participa- 
tion in  the  Rebellion,  could  not  assume  office  under  the  National 
Government  until  their  disabilities  should  be  removed  by  a  vote  of 
two-thirds  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,  even  though 
they  had  previously  been  pardoned  by  the  President.  The  language 
of  the  amendment,  the  very  careful  form  in  which  the  tense  was  ex- 
pressed, appeared  to  leave  no  other  meaning  possible,  and  the  inten- 
tion of  legislators  was  definitively  established  by  the  negative  votes 
already  referred  to.  The  intention  indeed  was  in  no  wise  to  inter- 
fere with  the  pardon  of  the  President,  leaving  to  that  its  full  scope 
in  the  remission  of  penalty  which  it  secured  to  those  engaged  in  the 
Rebellion.  The  pertinent  clause  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  was 
regarded  as  merely  prescribing  a  qualification  for  office,  and  the 
Constitutional  lawyers  considered  it  to  be  within  the  scope  of  the 
amending  power  as  much  as  it  would  be  to  change  the  age  at  which 


212  .  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

a  citizen  would  be  eligible  to  the  Senate  or  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives.1 

One  of  the  singular  features  attending  the  discussion  and  forma- 
tion of  this  amendment,  was  that  all  the  Democratic  senators  pre- 
ferred the  third  section  as  embodied  in  the  Constitutional  amend- 
ment finally  passed,  to  that  which  had  been  proposed  as  it  passed  the 
House.  The  amendment  could  not  probably  be  incorporated  in  the 
Constitution  for  a  year  and  according  to  the  original  proposition  of 
the  House,  therefore,  it  would  only  have  excluded  those  who  par- 
ticipated in  the  Rebellion  from  the  ballot-box  for  a  period  of  three 
years, — until  the  4th  of  July,  1870;  whereas  the  third  section,  as 
adopted,  perpetually  excluded  the  great  mass  of  the  leading  men  of 
the  South  from  holding  public  office,  either  in  Nation  or  State,  unless 
their  disabilities  should  be  removed  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds  in  each 
House  of  Congress.  No  adequate  explanation  was  given  for  this 
preference,  and  the  final  vote  substituting  that  which  was  incorpo- 
rated in  the  Constitution  for  the  House  proposition  was  42  in  the 
affirmative  to  1  in  the  negative.  The  negative  vote  was  given  by 
Reverdy  Johnson ;  while  such  staunch  Democrats  as  Guthrie  of 
Kentucky,  Hendricks  of  Indiana,  McDougal  of  California  and  Wil- 
lard  Saulsbury  of  Delaware  voted  to  prefer  the  one  to  the  other. 
Mr.  Johnson  afterwards  explained  that  he  voted  under  a  misappre- 
hension ;  so  that  the  substitution  was  made,  in  effect,  by  a  unani- 
mous vote  of  the  Senate. 

On  the  final  passage  in  the  Senate  of  the  consolidated  amend- 
ment the  ayes  were  33  and  the  noes  11.  When  the  amendment  was 
returned  to  the  House,  Mr.  Stevens  briefly  explained  the  changes 


1  Among  the  prominent  Southern  men  -who  had  received  the  pardon  of  the  Presi- 
dent, and  who,  desiring  to  hold  office  under  the  National  Government,  had  their  disa- 
abilities  under  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  subsequently  removed  by  Congress,  were: 
M.  C.  Butler,  James  L.  Orr,  and  William  Aiken  of  South  Carolina;  Joseph  E.  Brown, 
Henry  W.  Hilliard,  and  Lafayette  McLaws  of  Georgia;  F.  M.  Cockrell,  George  G.  Vest, 
and  John  B.  Clarke  of  Missouri;  J.  D.  C.  Atkins  and  George  Maney  of  Tennessee;  Ran- 
dall Gibson  of  Louisiana;  Otho  R.  Singleton  of  Mississippi;  Alexander  R.  Boteler  of 
Virginia;  Allen  T.  Caperton  and  Charles  J.  Faulkner  of  West  Virginia;  M.  W.  Ran- 
som, Thomas  S.  Ashe,  and  A.  M.  Scales  of  North  Carolina;  W.  B.  Machen  of  Kentucky; 
John  T.  Morgan  and  James  L.  Pugh  of  Alabama. 

These  gentlemen  had  all  held  high  positions  either  in  the  civil  or  military  service  of 
the  Confederacy.  A  great  number  of  additional  names  might  be  cited  of  persons  who, 
having  been  fully  pardoned  by  the  President,  were  afterwards  relieved  of  their  disabili- 
ties by  Congress.  The  names  quoted  are  but  a  few  of  the  more  conspicuous  of  those 
who  have,  since  the  Rebellion,  held  high  official  positions  under  the  Government  of  the 
United  States. 


FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT  PERFECTED.  213 

that  had  been  made  in  the  Senate.  The  first  section  was  altered  to 
define  who  are  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  States.  Mr. 
Stevens  declared  this  to  be  an  excellent  amendment,  long  needed  to 
settle  conflicting  decisions  between  the  several  States  and  the  United 
States.  He  said  the  second  section  had  received  but  slight  alteration. 
"  I  wish,"  he  continued,  "  it  had  received  more.  It  contains  much 
less  power  than  I  could  wish.  It  has  not  half  the  vigor  of  the  amend- 
ment which  was  lost  in  the  Senate."  The  third  section,  he  said,  had 
been  wholly  changed  by  substituting  the  ineligibility  of  certain  high 
officials  for  the  disfranchisement  of  all  rebels  until  1870.  Mr.  Stevens 
declared  that  he  could  not  look  upon  this  as  an  improvement.  "  It 
opens  the  elective  franchise  to  such  as  the  States  may  choose  to 
admit.  In  my  judgment  it  endangers  the  government  of  the  country, 
both  State  and  National,  and  may  give  the  next  Congress  and  Presi- 
dent to  the  reconstructed  rebels."  The  fourth  section,  "which  ren- 
ders inviolable  the  public  debt  and  repudiates  the  rebel  debt,  will 
secure  the  approbation  of  all  but  traitors."  "While  I  see,"  concluded 
Mr.  Stevens,  "much  good  in  the  proposition  I  do  not  pretend  to  be 
satisfied  with  it;  yet  I  am  anxious  for  its  speedy  adoption,  for  I 
dread  delay.  The  danger  is  that  before  any  Constitutional  guard 
shall  have  been  adopted,  Congress  will  be  flooded  by  rebels  and  rebel 
sympathizers."  The  House  came  to  a  final  test  on  the  Senate  amend- 
ments on  the  13th  of  June  and  concurred  in  all  of  them  by  a  single 
vote  —  ayes  120,  noes  32.  The  work  of  Congress  in  securing  the  Four- 
teenth Amendment  was  thus  made  complete. 

The  Constitutional  amendment  not  requiring  the  assent  of  the 
President  (for  the  good  reason  that  the  two-thirds  of  each  House 
which  can  override  a  veto  are  here  required  in  advance),  was  sub- 
mitted to  the  States  without  delay.  The  notification  to  the  States 
was  dated  June  16th.  Connecticut  was  the  first  to  assent  to  the 
amendment,  —  her  Legislature  being  in  session  and  her  ratification 
made  complete  on  the  30th,  —  precisely  a  fortnight  from  the  date 
of  submission.  New  Hampshire  followed  on  the  7th  of  July.  The 
third  State  was  Tennessee.  Her  Legislature  ratified  the  amendment 
on  the  19th  of  July,  by  a  vote  of  58  to  17,  counting  both  branches. 
Many  of  the  States  would  doubtless  have  held  extra  sessions  of  their 
Legislatures  to  expedite  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  if  such  a 
course  had  been  considered  desirable  by  the  leading  members  of  Con- 
gress. It  was  deemed  best,  however,  to  leave  the  question  open  to 
discussion  and  deliberation,  in  order  that  the  provisions  of  the  amend- 


214  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

ment,  in  all  their  length  and  breadth,  should  be  completely  under- 
stood by  the  people  before  the  formal  assent  of  the  States  should  be 
urged.  The  three  States  named  were  the  only  ones  which  ratified 
the  amendment  before  Congress  adjourned.1 


When  the  Reconstruction  Committee  reported  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment,  they  reported  with  it  a  bill  declaring  that  "  whenever 
said  amendment  shall  become  a  part  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  any  State  lately  in  insurrection  shall  have  ratified 
the  same  and  shall  have  modified  its  constitution  and  laws  in  con- 
formity therewith,"  such  State  should  be  admitted  to  representation. 

1  The  form  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  as  finally  agreed  upon  by  Congress  and 
submitted  to  the  States  for  ratification,  is  as  follows:  — 

"ARTICLE    XIV. 

"  SECT.  1.  All  persons  born  or  naturalized  in  the  United  States,  and  subject  to  the 
jurisdiction  thereof,  are  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  State  wherein  they 
reside.  No  State  shall  make  or  enforce  any  law  which  shall  abridge  the  privileges  or 
immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States;  nor  shall  any  State  deprive  any  person  of 
life,  liberty,  or  property,  without  due  process  of  law;  nor  deny  to  any  person  within  its 
jurisdiction  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws. 

"  SECT.  2.  Representatives  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several  States  according 
to  their  respective  numbers,  counting  the  whole  number  of  persons  in  each,  excluding 
Indians  not  taxed.  But  when  the  right  to  vote  at  any  election  for  the  choice  of  electors 
for  President  and  Vice-President  of  the  United  States,  representatives  in  Congress,  the 
executive  and  judicial  officers  of  a  State,  or  the  members  of  the  Legislature  thereof,  is 
denied  to  any  of  the  male  inhabitants  of  such  State,  being  twenty-one  years  of  age,  and 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any  way  abridged,  except  for  participation  in  rebel- 
lion, or  other  crime,  the  basis  of  representation  therein  shall  be  reduced  in  the  proportion 
which  the  number  of  such  male  citizens  shall  bear  to  the  whole  number  of  male  citizens 
twenty-one  years  of  age  in  such  State. 

"SECT.  3.  No  person  shall  be  a  senator  or  representative  in  Congress,  or  elector  of 
President  and  Vice-President,  or  hold  any  office,  civil  or  military,  under  the  United 
States,  or  under  any  State,  who,  having  previously  taken  an  oath,  as  a  member  of  Con- 
gress, or  as  an  officer  of  the  United  States,' or  as  a  member  of  any  State  Legislature,  or 
as  an  executive  or  judicial  officer  of  any  State,  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  shall  have  engaged  in  insurrection  or  rebellion  against  the  same,  or  given 
aid  or  comfort  to  the  enemies  thereof.  But  Congress  may,  by  a  Vote  of  two-thirds  of 
each  House,  remove  such  disability. 

"  SECT.  4.  The  validity  of  the  public  debt  of  the  United  States,  authorized  by  law, 
including  debts  incurred  for  the  payment  of  pensions,  and  bounties  for  services  in  sup- 
pressing insurrection  or  rebellion,  shall  not  be  questioned.  But  neither  the  United 
States  nor  any  State  shall  assume  or  pay  any  debt  or  obligation  incurred  in  aid  of  insur- 
rection or  rebellion  against  the  United  States,  or  any  claim  for  the  loss  or  emancipation 
of  any  slave;  but  all  such  debts,  obligations,  and  claims  shall  be  held  illegal  and  void. 

"  SECT.  5.  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce,  by  appropriate  legislation,  the 
provisions  of  this  article." 


RE-ADMISSION  OF  TENNESSEE.  215 

There  had  been  during  the  entire  session  of  Congress  a  disposition 
to  make  an  exception  in  favor  of  the  State  of  Tennessee.  She  had 
of  her  own  motion  elected  her  loyal  governor,  and  now  for  a  year 
and  a  half  the  administration  of  the  State  was  in  a  comparative  degree 
orderly  and  regular.  When  telegraphic  intelligence  of  the  action  of 
the  Tennessee  Legislature  reached  the  Capitol  Mr.  Bingham  of  Ohio 
moved  a  joint  resolution,  reciting  in  effect  by  preamble,  that  as  the 
"  State  of  Tennessee  has  in  good  faith  ratified  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment, and  has  also  shown  to  the  satisfaction  of  Congress,  by  a  proper 
spirit  of  obedience  in  the  body  of  her  people,  her  return  to  due 
allegiance  to  the  Government,  laws  and  authority  of  the  United 
States ;  therefore,  be  it  resolved  that  the  State  of  Tennessee  is  hereby 
restored  to  her  former,  proper,  practical  relations  to  the  Union, 
and  is  again  entitled  to  be  represented  in  Congress  by  senators 
and  representatives  duly  elected  and  qualified,  upon  their  taking  the 
oaths  of  office  required  by  existing  laws."  Mr.  Boutwell  of  Massa- 
chusetts desired  to  add  a  condition  that  Tennessee,  as  a  prerequisite 
to  the  privilege  of  representation,  should  provide  "  an  equal  and  just 
system  of  suffrage  for  the  male  citizens  within  its  jurisdiction  who 
are  not  less  than  twenty-one  years  of  age."  Mr.  Bingham  declined 
to  admit  it,  shutting  off  all  amendments  by  the  force  of  the  previous 
question,  for  which  the  House  sustained  his  demand.  After  a 
few  hours'  debate  the  House  passed  the  joint  resolution  by  125  ayes 
to  12  noes.  The  Democrats  all  supported  the  measure,  though  they 
objected  strenuously  to  some  of  the  implications  of  the  preamble. 
The  few  votes  in  the  negative  were  given  by  some  radical  Republi- 
cans, though  Mr.  Stevens,  the  leader  of  that  wing  of  the  party,  sup- 
ported the  bill. 

When  the  bill  admitting  Tennessee  reached  the  Senate  there 
was  a  discussion  of  some  length  in  regard  to  changing  the  preamble 
which  had  been  adopted  by  the  House,  the  principal  aim  being  to 
insert  the  declaration  that  "said  State  Government  can  only  be 
restored  to  its  former  political  relations  in  the  Union  by  the  consent 
of  the  law-making  power  of  the  United  States."  There  was  division 
among  the  Republican  senators  in  regard  to  the  expediency  of  this 
change.  It  was  the  judgment  of  the  more  conservative  Republicans 
who  followed  Mr.  Fessenden,  that  it  was  needless  to  risk  a  veto  of  an 
important  bill  of  this  character  by  confronting  the  President  with 
a  distinct  negation  of  his  own  theory  in  a  place  where  it  practically 
availed  nothing.  After  much  discussion  however  it  was  concluded 


216  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

to  change  the  preamble  for  the  sake  of  establishing  a  precedent  in 
the  first  one  of  the  Confederate  States  restored  to  the  right  of  rep- 
resentation in  Congress.  The  resolution  of  the  House  remained 
unchanged.  The  phrase,  "hereby  restored  to  her  former,  proper, 
practical  relations  to  the  Union,"  was  one  much  cherished,  because 
it  was  the  original  expression  of  Mr.  Lincoln  in  his  last  public 
speech.  The  House  readily  concurred  in  the  change  of  preamble. 

The  President  accepted  the  challenge  of  his  theory  embodied  in 
the  preamble,  not  by  veto,  but  in  the  more  innocent  form  of  argu- 
ment. "  If,"  said  he,  in  a  special  message  of  July  25th,  "  the  ratifica- 
tion of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  be  one  of  the  conditions  of  admitting  Tennessee,  and  if,  as  is 
also  declared  by  the  preamble,  said  State  Government  can  only  be 
restored  to  its  former  political  relations  to  the  Union  by  the  consent 
of  the  law-making  power  of  the  United  States,  it  would  really  seem 
to  follow  that  the  joint  resolution,  which  at  this  late  day  has  received 
the  sanction  of  Congress,  should  have  been  passed,  approved  and 
placed  on  the  statute-books  before  any  amendment  to  the  Consti- 
tution was  submitted  to  the  State  of  Tennessee  for  ratification. 
Otherwise  the  inference  is  plainly  deducible  that  while  in  the  opinion 
of  Congress  the  people  of  a  State  may  be  too  disloyal  to  be  entitled 
to  representation,  they  may  nevertheless  have  an  equally  potent  voice 
with  other  States  in  amending  the  Constitution,  upon  which  so  essen- 
tially depends  the  stability,  prosperity  and  very  existence  of  the 
nation." 

The  argument  in  the  message  was  regarded  as  an  ingenious  cen- 
sure of  Congress  by  the  President,  and  was  loudly  applauded  on  the 
Democratic  side  of  the  House.  He  concluded  by  declaring  that  not- 
withstanding the  anomalous  character  of  the  resolution,  he  had 
affixed  his  signature  to  it.  "  My  approval,  however,"  he  added,  "  is 
not  to  be  construed  as  an  acknowledgment  of  the  right  of  Congress 
to  pass  laws  preliminary  to  the  admission  of  duly  qualified  represen- 
tatives from  any  of  the  States."  The  senators  and  ^representatives 
of  the  State  were  sworn  in  and  took  their  seats  as  soon  as  the 
President's  message  approving  the  bill  was  read,  and  the  reconstruc- 
tion of  Tennessee  was  complete.  She  had  regained  all  her  rights 
as  a  member  of  the  Union,  coming  in  through  the  gateway  of  two 
Constitutional  Amendments,  the  Thirteenth  and  the  Fourteenth.  It 
was  evident  from  that  moment  that  no  one  of  the  Confederate  States 
would  ever  again  be  admitted,  so  long  as  the  Republican  party  held 


ELECTIONS  FOR  FORTIETH  CONGRESS.  217 

power  in  the  country,  except  by  giving  their  assent  to  the  incorpora- 
tion of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  in  the  Constitution.  The  bill 
from  the  Reconstruction  Committee  requiring  this  as  a  condition  was 
not  enacted  into  law,  but  the  admission  of  Tennessee  was  a  prece- 
dent stronger  than  law.  Of  all  the  seceding  States  Tennessee  was 
held  to  be  the  least  offending,  and  the  feeling  of  kindliness  towards 
her  had  been  manifest  from  the  first  among  Republicans.  It  was 
evident  therefore  to  the  least  observing,  that  no  other  State  which 
had  been  engaged  in  the  Rebellion  would  be  permitted  to  resume 
the  privilege  of  representation  on  less  exacting  conditions  than  had 
been  imposed  on  Tennessee.  It  might  be  that  their  own  conduct 
would  cause  more  exacting  conditions  to  be  imposed. 

Congress  adjourned  on  the  28th  of  July.  Elections  were  to  be 
held  in  the  ensuing  autumn  for  representatives  to  the  Fortieth  Con- 
gress, and  an  opportunity  was  thus  promptly  afforded  to  test  the 
popular  feeling  on  the  issue  raised  by  the  President's  plan  of  Recon- 
struction. The  appeal  was  to  be  made  to  the  same  constituency 
which  two  years  before  had  chosen  him  to  the  Vice-Presidency,  — 
augmented  by  the  vote  of  Tennessee,  now  once  more  authorized  to 
take  part  in  electing  the  representatives  of  the  nation.  Seldom  in 
the  history  of  the  country  has  a  weightier  question  been  submitted 
to  popular  arbitrament ;  seldom  has  a  popular  decision  been  evoked 
which  was  destined  to  exercise  so  far-reaching  an  influence  upon 
the  progress  of  the  nation,  upon  the  prosperity  of  the  people.  It 
was  not  an  ordinary  political  contest  between  partisans  of  recog- 
nized and  chronic  hostility.  It  was  a  deadly  struggle  between  the 
Executive  and  Legislative  Departments  of  the  Government,  both 
of  which  had  been  chosen  by  the  same  party.  This  peculiar  fact 
imparted  to  the  contest  a  degree  of  personal  acrimony  and  political 
rancor  never  before  exhibited  in  the  biennial  election  of  representa- 
tives in  Congress. 


CHAPTER    X. 

A  CABINET  CRISIS.  —  RESIGNATION  OF  WILLIAM  DENNISON,  POSTMASTER-GENERAL, 
JAMES  SPEED,  ATTORNEY-GENERAL,  AND  JAMES  HARLAN,  SECRETARY  OF  THE 
INTERIOR.  —  SUCCEEDED  RESPECTIVELY  BY  ALEXANDER  W.  RANDALL,  HENRY 
STANBURY,  AND  ORVILLE  H.  BROWNING.  —  POLITICAL  CAMPAIGN  OF  1866.  —  FOUR 
NATIONAL  CONVENTIONS.  —  Two  FAVORING  THE  PRESIDENT;  TWO  ADVERSE.— 
PHILADELPHIA  CONVENTION,  AUGUST  14,  FAVORING  THE  PRESIDENT.  —  IMPRESSIVE 
IN  NUMBERS,  DISTINGUISHED  IN  DELEGATES.  —  PHILADELPHIA  CONVENTION  OP 
SEPTEMBER  13.  —  SOUTHERN  LOYALISTS  AND  NORTHERN  SYMPATHIZERS.  —  LIST  OF 
PROMINENT  MBIT  IN  ATTENDANCE.  —  MARKED  EFFECT  OF  ITS  PROCEEDINGS.— 
SPEECH  OF  HONORABLE  JAMES  SPEED.  —  ADDRESS  TO  THE  PEOPLE.  —  WRITTEN  BY 
THE  HONORABLE  J.  A.  J.  CRESWELL.  —  SOLDIERS'  CONVENTION  AT  CLEVELAND.— 
FAVORABLE  TO  PRESIDENT.  —  SPEECH  OF  GENERAL  EWING.  —  CONVENTION  PRINCI- 
PALLY DEMOCRATIC  IN  MEMBERSHIP.  —  ITS  PROCEEDINGS  INEFFECTIVE.  —  SOLDIERS' 
CONVENTION  AT  PITTSBURG.  —  HOSTILE  TO  PRESIDENT.  —  GENERAL  Cox  PRESIDES. 

—  DISTINGUISHED  OFFICERS  PRESENT.  —  TWENTY-FIVE  THOUSAND  SOLDIERS  PRES- 
ENT. —  GREAT  EFFECT  FOLLOWED  IT  IN  THE  COUNTRY.  —  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT 
THE  RALLYING-POINT.  —  POLITICAL  EVENTS  OF  THE  SUMMER.  —  HOSTILE  TO  PRESI- 
DENT.—  NEW-ORLEANS  RIOT  OF  JULY  30.  —  GREAT  SLAUGHTER.  —  REBEL  OFFICERS 
IN  LOUISIANA  RESPONSIBLE.  —  INVESTIGATED  BY  CONGRESS.  —  ALSO  BY  MILITARY 
AUTHORITIES.  —  REPORTS  SUBSTANTIALLY  AGREE.  —  CENSURE  OF  THE  PRESIDENT. 

—  RESULT    HURTFUL  TO  HIS  ADMINISTRATION.  —  His  FAMOUS  TOUR.  —  INJURIOUS 
TO  HIS  ADMINISTRATION.  —  REPUBLICANS  VICTORIOUS  IN  ELECTIONS  THROUGHOUT 
THE  NORTH.  —  DEMOCRATS  VICTORIOUS  THROUGHOUT  THE  SOUTH.  —  HOUSE  OF  REP- 
RESENTATIVES  REPUBLICAN  BY  THREE   TO    ONE.  —  PRESIDENT    DEPRESSED.  —  IM- 
PORTANCE OF  THE  ELECTIONS  OF  1866.  —  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE.  —  THE  DIFFICULTY  OP 
IMPOSING  IT  ON  THB  SOUTH.  —  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT  THE  TEST  FOR  RECON- 
STRUCTION. 

THE  hostility  of  the  President  to  all  measures  which  the  Repub- 
lican party  deemed  necessary  for  the  proper  reconstruction  of 
the  Southern  States,  had  made  a  deep  impression  upon  certain  mem- 
bers of  his  Cabinet,  and  before  midsummer  it  was  known  that  a  crisis 
was  impending.  On  the  llth  of  July  Mr.  William  Dennison,  the 
Postmaster-general,  tendered  his  resignation,  alleging  as  the  chief 
cause  the  difference  of  opinion  between  himself  and  the  President  in 
regard  to  the  proposed  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution. 
He  had  for  some  months  felt  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  him  to 
co-operate  with  the  President,  and  the  relations  between  them  were 

218 


A  CRISIS  IN  THE  CABINET.  219 

no  longer  cordial,  if  they  were  not  indeed  positively  hostile.  Alexan- 
der W.  Randall  of  Wisconsin,  the  first  assistant  Postmaster-general, 
was  an  outspoken  supporter  of  the  measures  of  the  Administration, 
and  was  using  every  effort  to  prejudice  Mr.  Johnson's  mind  against 
Mr.  Dennison,  whom  he  was  ambitious  to  succeed.  Mr.  Dennison  felt 
that  he  was  seriously  compromising  his  position  at  home  by  remaining 
in  the  Cabinet,  though  he  had  been  urged  to  that  course  by  some  zeal- 
ous opponents  of  the  Administration,  who  desired,  as  long  as  possible, 
to  restrain  the  President  from  using  the  patronage  of  the  Government 
in  aid  of  his  policy.  Mr.  Randall  was  promptly  nominated  as  Mr. 
Dennison's  successor  and  proved,  in  all  respects,  a  faithful  follower 
of  his  chief. 

A  week  later  Mr.  James  Speed  resigned  his  post  as  Attorney-gen- 
eral. He  had  been  regarded  as  very  conservative  on  all  pending  issues 
relating  to  Reconstruction,  but  he  now  saw  plainly  that  the  President 
was  inevitably  drifting,  not  only  to  extreme  views  on  the  issue  pre- 
sented, but  to  an  evident  alliance  with  the  Democratic  party  and  per- 
haps a  return  to  its  ranks.  Against  this  course  Mr.  Speed  revolted. 
His  inheritance  of  Whig  principles,  his  anti-slavery  convictions,  his 
personal  associations,  all  forbade  his  following  the  President  in  his 
desertion  of  the  Republican  party.  He  saw  his  duty,  and  promptly 
retired  from  a  position  which  he  felt  that  he  could  not  hold  with 
personal  consistency  and  honor.  His  successor  was  Henry  Stanbery 
of  Ohio,  a  lawyer  of  high  reputation  and  a  gentleman  of  unsullied 
character.  He  belonged  to  that  association  of  old  Whigs  who,  in 
their  extreme  conservatism  on  the  slavery  question,  had  been  driven 
to  a  practical  union  with  the  Democratic  party. 

A  few  days  after  Mr.  Speed's  resignation  Mr.  James  Harlan 
retired  from  the  Interior  Department.  He  would  have  broken  his 
relations  with  the  President  long  before,  but  for  the  same  cause  that 
had  detained  Mr.  Dennison.  He  was  extremely  reluctant  to  sur- 
render the  large  patronage  of  the  Interior  Department  to  the  control 
of  a  successor  who  would  undoubtedly  use  it  to  promote  the  Recon- 
struction policy  of  the  President,  just  as  Mr.  Randall  would  use  the 
patronage  of  the  Post-office  Department.  Mr.  Harlan  had  therefore 
remained  in  the  Cabinet  as  long  as  was  consistent  with  his  personal 
dignity,  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  the  Republican  principles 
which  the  President  and  he  were  alike  pledged  to  uphold.  He  was 
succeeded  by  Mr.  Orville  H.  Browning  of  Illinois,  who  had  been 
a  devoted  friend  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  had  done  much  to  secure  his 


220  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

nomination  at  Chicago.  He  had  served  for  two  years  in  the  Senate 
after  the  death  of  Mr.  Douglas,  and  but  for  the  immediate  control 
over  his  course  by  President  Lincoln  would  have  been  a  co-laborer 
with  those  who  were  hostile  to  the  mode  in  which  the  war  was  pros- 
ecuted. His  faith  in  Mr.  Lincoln,  his  great  admiration  for  his  talent, 
and  his  strong  personal  attachment  to  him,  had  for  the  time  main- 
tained Mr.  Browning  in  loyalty  to  the  Republican  party ;  but  with 
the  restraining  influence  of  the  great  President  gone,  Mr.  Browning, 
by  reason  of  his  prejudices  not  less  than  his  convictions,  at  once 
affiliated  and  co-operated  with  the  Democratic  party.  He  was  a  man 
of  fair  ability  and  of  honorable  intentions,  but  always  narrow  in  his 
views  of  public  policy.  Any  thing  that  could  possibly  be  considered 
radical  inevitably  encountered  his  hostility. 

The  political  campaign  of  1866  was  one  of  greater  excitement 
than  had  ever  been  witnessed  in  this  country,  except  in  the  election 
of  a  President.  The  chief  interest  was  in  choosing  members  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  for  the  Fortieth  Congress,  and  in  controll- 
ing the  Legislatures  which  were  to  choose  senators  of  the  United 
States  and  pass  upon  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  In  elections  of 
this  character,  even  in  periods  of  deepest  interest,  the  demonstrations 
of  popular  feeling  are  confined  to  the  respective  States,  but  in  this 
instance  there  were  no  less  than  four  National  Conventions,  three  of 
them,  at  least,  of  imposing  magnitude  and  exerting  great  influence 
on  popular  action. 

The  first  was  called  by  the  friends  of  President  Johnson  to  meet 
in  Philadelphia  on  the  14th  of  August.  The  object  was  to  effect  a 
complete  consolidation  of  the  Administration  Republicans  and  the 
Democratic  party,  under  the  claim  that  they  were  the  true  conserva- 
tors of  the  Union,  and  that  the  mass  of  the  Republican  party,  in 
opposing  President  Johnson,  were  endangering  the  ..stability  of  the 
Government.  A  large  majority  of  the  delegates  composing  the 
convention  were  well-known  Democrats,  and  they  were  re-enforced 
by  some  prominent  Republicans,  who  had  left  their,  party  and  fol- 
lowed the  personal  fortunes  of  President  Johnson.  The  most  con- 
spicuous of  these  were  Montgomery  Blair  (who  for  some  years  had 
been  acting  with  the  Republicans),  Thurlow  Weed,  Marshall  0. 
Roberts,  Henry  J.  Raymond,  John  A.  Dix  and  Robert  S.  Hale  of 
New  York,  Edgar  Cowan  of  Pennsylvania,  James  R.  Doolittle  and 
Alexander  W.  Randall  of  Wisconsin,  O.  H.  Browning  of  Illinois, 
and  James  Dixon  of  Connecticut.  The  Democrats  were  not  only 


AN  ADMINISTRATION  CONVENTION.  221 

overwhelmingly  in  the  majority,  but  they  had  a  very  large  represen- 
tation of  the  leaders  of  the  party  in  several  States.  So  considerable 
a  proportion  of  the  whole  number  were  men  who  had  been  noticeably 
active  as  opponents  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  Administration,  that  the  con- 
vention was  popularly  described  as  a  gathering  of  malignant  copper- 
heads who,  during  the  war,  could  not  have  assembled  in  the  city 
where  they  were  now  hospitably  received,  without  creating  a  riot. 
Among  the  most  conspicuous  and  most  offensive  of  this  latter  class,  — 
those  who  had  especially  distinguished  themselves  for  the  bitterness, 
and  in  some  cases  for  the  vulgarity,  of  their  personal  assaults  upon 
Mr.  Lincoln,  —  were  Mr.  Vallandigham  of  Ohio,  Fernando  Wood, 
Benjamin  Wood  and  James  Brooks  of  New  York,  Edmund  Burke 
and  John  G.  Sinclair  of  New  Hampshire,  Edward  J.  Phelps  of  Ver- 
mont, George  W.  Woodward,  Francis  W.  Hughes  and  James  Camp- 
bell of  Pennsylvania,  and  R.  B.  Carmichael  of  Maryland.  Among 
the  leading  Democrats,  less  noted  for  virulent  utterances  against  the 
President,  were  Samuel  J.  Tilden,  Dean  Richmond  and  Sanford  E. 
Church  of  New  York,  John  P.  Stockton  and  Joel  Parker  of  New 
Jersey,  David  R.  Porter,  William  Bigler  and  Asa  Packer  of  Penn- 
sylvania, James  E.  English  of  Connecticut,  Robert  C.  Winthrop  and 
Josiah  G.  Abbott  of  Massachusetts,  William  Beach  Lawrence  of 
Rhode  Island,  and  Reverdy  Johnson  of  Maryland. 

Mr.  Vallandigham's  participation  in  the  proceedings  was  met  with 
objection.  He  had  not  spoken  more  violently  and  offensively  against 
President  Lincoln  and  against  the  conduct  of  the  war  than  some  other 
members  of  the  convention,  but  his  course  had  been  so  notorious  and 
had  been  rendered  so  odious  by  his  punishment,  both  in  being  sent 
beyond  the  rebel  lines  and  afterwards  in  being  defeated  for  gov- 
ernor of  his  State  by  more  than  one  hundred  thousand  majority, 
that  many  of  the  delegates  were  not  content  to  sit  with  him,  — 
a  sentiment  which  Mr.  Vallandigham  is  said  to  have  considered 
one  of  mawkish  sentimentality,  but  one  to  which  he  deferred  by 
quietly  withdrawing  from  all  participation  in  the  proceedings.  It  was 
believed,  and  indeed  openly  asserted,  at  the  time,  that  if  he  had  chosen 
to  remain  the  attempt  to  eject  him  by  resolution,  as  was.  threatened, 
would  have  led  to  a  practical  dissolution  of  the  convention. 

The  work  of  the  convention  was  embodied  in  a  long  series  of 
resolutions  reported  by  Mr.  Cowan  of  Pennsylvania,  and  an  address 
prepared  and  read  by  Mr.  Henry  J.  Raymond.  Both  the  resolutions 
and  the  address  simply  emphasized  the  issue  already  presented  to  the 


222  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

country  by  the  antagonistic  attitude  of  the  President  and  Congress. 
In  the  resolutions,  in  the  address,  and  in  all  the  speeches,  the  one 
refrain  was  the  right  of  every  State  to  representation  in  Congress. 
The  convention  challenged  the  right  in  Congress  to  deny  representa- 
tion to  a  State,  for  a  single  day  after  the  war  was  ended  and  sub- 
mission to  National  authority  had  been  proclaimed  throughout  the 
area  of  the  Rebellion.  In  every  form  in  which  the  argument  could 
be  presented,  they  disputed  the  right  or  power  to  attach  any  con- 
dition whatever  to  the  re-admission  of  the  rebel  States  to  a  free 
participation  in  the  proceedings  of  Congress.  One  of  the  resolu- 
tions declared  that  "  representation  in  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  or  in  the  Electoral  College  is  a  right  recognized  by  the  Con- 
stitution as  abiding  in  every  State  and  as  a  duty  imposed  upon  its 
people,  fundamental  in  its  nature  and  essential  to  the  exercise  of  our 
republican  institutions ;  and  neither  Congress  nor  the  General  Gov- 
ernment has  any  authority  or  power  to  deny  this  right  to  any  State, 
or  withhold  its  enjoyment  under  the  Constitution  from  the  people 
thereof;  and  we  call  upon  the  people  of  the  United  States  to  elect  to 
Congress,  as  members  thereof,  none  but  men  who  admit  this  funda- 
mental right  of  representation  and  who  will  receive  to  seats  in  Con- 
gress their  loyal  representatives  from  every  State  in  allegiance  to  the 
United  States."  This  sentiment  was  embodied  in  many  forms  in  Mr. 
Raymond's  address,  was,  in  fact,  the  one  fundamental  article  in  the 
creed  of  the  Administration  and  the  Democratic  party,  and  afforded 
the  common  ground  for  their  political  co-operation. 

Mr.  Raymond  undoubtedly  marred  the  general  effect  of  the 
address  by  carrying  his  argument  to  an  extreme  point.  "It  is 
alleged,"  said  he,  "that  the  condition  of  the  Southern  States  and 
people  is  not  such  as  renders  safe  their  re-admission  to  a  share  in 
the  government  of  the  country,  that  they  are  still  disloyal  in  senti- 
ment and  purpose,  and  that  neither  the  honor,  the  credit,  nor  the 
interest  of  the  Nation  would  be  safe  if  they  were  re-admitted  to  a 
share  in  its  counsels."  Mr.  Raymond  maintained,  even  if  the  truth 
of  this  premise  were  granted,  that  it  was  sufficient  to  reply  that 
"  we  have  no  right,  for  such  reasons,  to  deny  to  any  portion  of  the 
States  or  people  rights  expressly  conferred  upon  them  by  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States,  and  we  have  no  right  to  distrust  the 
purpose  or  the  ability  of  the  people  of  the  Union  to  protect  and 
defend,  under  all  contingencies  and  by  whatever  means  may  be  re- 
quired, its  honor  and  its  welfare." 


HOPES  OF  THE  ADMINISTRATION.  223 

This  assertion  of  the  right  of  the  Southern  States  to  take  part  at 
once  and  peremptorily  in  the  legislation  of  a  country  they  had  sought 
to  ruin,  was  not  conceded  by  the  people  of  the  loyal  States.  They 
did  not  require  any  refinement  of  argument  to  convince  them  that 
men  who  attempt  to  destroy  a  Government  should  not  be  permitted 
at  once  to  share  in  its  administration.  They  believed  that  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States  would  be  guilty  of  a  great  wrong  if  it 
should  unconditionally  surrender  its  power  to  the  men  wrho  demanded 
admission  to  peaceful  control  of  the  Nation  only  because  they  had 
failed  to  disrupt  it  by  war.  Mr.  Raymond's  personal  friends  and 
admirers,  who  were  not  confined  to  any  one  party,  were  amazed  at 
the  recklessness  of  his  position.  He  did  violence  to  sound  logic  by 
claiming  more  than  was  necessary  to  his  argument,  and  he  seriously 
injured  his  repute  for  political  shrewdness  by  attempting  to  enforce  a 
policy  which  grated  on  the  sensibilities  and  aroused  the  prejudices 
of  the  vast  majority  of  those  who  had  filled  the  ranks  of  the  Union 
Army. 

Great  advantage  was  expected  by  the  President's  supporters 
from  the  fact  that  the  convention,  as  they  averred,  was  so  truly 
"  National "  —  having  delegates  from  every  State  of  the  Union.  This 
feature  was  presented  as  in  hurtful  contrast  with  Republican  conven- 
tions, whose  members  came  almost  entirely  from  the  loyal  States.  A 
striking  spectacle  was  attempted  by  having  members  from  Northern 
and  Southern  States  enter  the  great  wigwam  (which  had  been  spe- 
cially prepared  for  the  meetings  of  the  convention)  arm  in  arm.  To 
intensify  the  effect  Massachusetts  and  South  Carolina  headed  the 
procession,  General  Couch  and  ex-Speaker  Orr  typifying  in  this  dis- 
play the  thorough  cordiality  of  Unionist  and  Confederate  in  the  return 
of  peace  and  amicable  relations.  The  danger  of  all  such  exhibitions 
is,  that  they  may  be  made  a  subject  of  ridicule.  This  did  not  escape. 
The  "wigwam"  was  parodied  by  the  political  wits  of  the  Republican 
party  as  "  Noah's  Ark,"  into  which  there  went,  as  described  in  Gene- 
sis, "  in  two  and  two"  "  of  clean  beasts,  and  of  beasts  that  are  not  dean, 
and  of  fowls,  and  of  every  thing  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth"  The 
humor  which  this  comparison  evoked  was  of  a  kind  especially  adapted 
to  the  stump  and  was  used  most  effectively.  Indeed  the  President's 
supporters,  long  before  the  canvass  closed,  heartily  regretted  that 
they  had  ever  resorted  to  dramatic  scenes  as  a  method  of  promoting 
a  political  cause. 

The  convention  of  the  President's  supporters  was  followed  a  fort- 


224  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

night  later  (September  3rd)  in  the  same  city  —  Philadelphia — by 
a  still  more  imposing  assemblage  called  by  the  loyalists  of  the  South, 
who,  desiring  to  explain  their  exact  situation  to  co-operating  friends, 
invited  delegations  from  the  Northern  States  to  meet  them.  Promi- 
nent Republicans  from  every  loyal  Commonwealth  responded  in  full 
force  to  these  men  who  were  endeavoring  to  reconstruct  their  States 
on  an  enduring  basis  of  Constitutional  liberty.  Pennsylvania  sent 
a  generous  delegation  as  hosts  to  those  who  were  to  enjoy  the  hospi- 
talities of  the  State.  Governor  Curtin  headed  the  list.  Associated 
with  him  were  General  Geary,  already  named  as  his  successor,  Gene- 
ral Simon  Cameron,  at  that  time  a  private  citizen,  Colonel  John  W. 
Forney,  then  editor  of  the  Philadelphia  Press,  and  representatives 
from  every  Congressional  district  in  the  State.  Other  States  re- 
sponded with  equal  cordiality.  Senators  Morgan  and  Harris,  Horace 
Greeley,  and  John  Jacob  Astor,  came  from  New  York.  Massachu- 
setts sent  her  governor,  her  senators,  and  all  her  living  ex-governors. 
It  became,  indeed,  the  fashion  for  the  New-England  States  to  send 
governors  and  ex-governors,  and  every  State  was  represented  in  this 
way.  New  Jersey  did  likewise.  The  Western  States  were  fully 
represented  by  their  ablest  and  most  zealous  men.  Two  future  Presi- 
dents were  on  the  delegation  from  Ohio,  with  General  Schenck  and 
Stanley  Matthews  and  the  influential  German  editor  Frederick 
Hassaurek.  Oliver  P.  Morton  came  from  Indiana,  Lyman  Trumbull 
from  Illinois,  Fairchild  and  Howe  from  Wisconsin,  Zachariah  Chan- 
dler and  Carl  Schurz  (then  editor  of  the  Detroit  Post)  from  Michigan. 
The  border  slave  States  sent  strong  men.  N.  B.  Smithers  came  from 
Delaware  ;  Senator  Creswell,  Francis  Thomas,  and  C.  C.  Fulton  of 
the  Baltimore  American,  from  Maryland  ;  Governor  Boreman,  A.  W. 
Campbell  and  Nathan  Goff  from  West  Virginia ;  Robert  J.  Breck- 
enridge  accompanied  ex- Attorney-general  Speed  from  Kentucky;  while 
Missouri  sent  Governor  Fletcher,  sustained  by  an  able  delegation,  of 
whom  Van  Horn,  Fincklenberg  and  Louis  Gottschalk  were  promi- 
nent members.  A  number  of  business  men,  headed-  by  E.  W.  Fox, 
came  from  St.  Louis. 

Many  of  the  Southern  States  were  somewhat  scantily  represented. 
It  was  not  safe  in  certain  sections  of  the  South  to  hold  a  convention 
for  the  selection  of  delegates,  and  yet  one  or  more  appeared  from 
every  one  of  the  lately  rebellious  States.  Thomas  J.  Durant  and 
H.  C.  Warmoth  came  from  Louisiana;  D.  H.  Bingham  and  M.  J. 
Safford  from  Alabama ;  G.  W.  Ashburn  from  Georgia ;  and  Governor 


CONVENTION  OF  THE  PRESIDENT'S  OPPONENTS.          225 

A.  J.  Hamilton,  Lorenzo  Sherwood  and  George  W.  Paschal  from 
Texas.  Albion  W.  Tourgee,  who  has  since  won  a  brilliant  reputation 
in  literature,  came  from  North  Carolina  with  a  strong  delegation ; 
J.  W.  Field  and  H.  W.  Davis  from  Mississippi.  Virginia  and  Ten- 
nessee, of  the  original  Confederacy,  sent  a  large  number  of  good 
men.  From  the  former  came  John  Minor  Botts,  George  W.  Somers, 
Lucius  H.  Chandler,  Daniel  H.  Hoge,  Lewis  McKenzie,  James  M. 
Stewart,  and  some  hundred  and  fifty  others:  the  latter  was  repre- 
sented by  Governor  Brownlow,  Joseph  S.  Fowler,  Samuel  Arnell, 
A.  W.  Hawkins,  Thomas  H.  Benton,  General  John  Eaton,  Barbour 
Lewis,  and  many  others  whose  loyalty  had  been  tested  by  many  forms 
of  personal  peril. 

These  names  give  a  fair  indication  of  the  character  and  weight 
of  the  convention.  It  was  intended  to  be,  and  was,  a  representative 
body  of  true  Union  men,  of  the  men  who  had  borne  persecution  for 
Loyalty's  sake,  of  the  men  who,  having  aided  in  achieving  great  vic- 
tory, were  resolved  that  it  should  not  fair  to  bear  its  legitimate  fruits. 
The  delegates  from  all  the  States  first  assembled  in  Independence 
Square,  and  after  a  meeting  of  congratulation,  marked  by  great 
enthusiasm,  proceeded  to  form  into  two  conventions,  —  one  contain- 
ing the  loyalists  who  had  called  the  convention,  and  the  other  the 
Northern  delegates  who  had  met  to  welcome  them.  Of  the  Southern 
Convention  Mr.  Thomas  J.  Durant  of  Louisiana  was  selected  as  tem- 
porary chairman,  and  Honorable  James  Speed  of  Kentucky  as  per- 
manent chairman  ;  and  of  the  Northern  Convention  Governor  Curtin 
of  Pennsylvania  was  both  temporary  and  permanent  chairman.  The 
motive  for  thus  separating  was  to  leave  the  Southern  loyalists  entirely 
untrammeled  in  their  proceedings,  in  order  that  their  voice  might 
have  greater  weight  in  the  country  than  if  it  were  apparently  directed 
by  a  large  majority  of  Northern  men  assembling  in  the  same  body 
with  them. 

The  Northern  Convention  concluded  its  proceedings  on  the  third 
day  with  a  mass-meeting  larger  than  any  that  had  ever  assembled 
in  Philadelphia.  The  Southern  Convention  remained  in  session  full 
five  days.  The  interest  was  sustained  from  beginning  to  end,  and 
besides  the  delegates  present,  a  vast  assemblage  of  people  thronged 
the  streets  of  Philadelphia  during  all  the  sessions  of  the  conventions. 
In  an  off  year,  as  partisans  call  it,  there  had  never  been  seen  so 
great  excitement,  enthusiasm  and  earnestness  in  any  political  assem- 
blage. Mr.  Durant  called  the  Southern  Convention  to  order  with 
VOL.  II.  15 


226  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

the  same  gavel  that  had  been  used  in  the  Secession  Convention  in 
South  Carolina.  Governor  Hamilton  of  Texas,  who  presented  it  for 
the  occasion,  reminded  his  audience  that  the  whirligig  of  time  brings 
about  its  revenges,  and  that  it  seemed  a  poetic  retribution  that  a  con- 
vention of  Southern  loyalists  should  be  called  to  order  with  the  same 
instrument  that  had  rapped  the  South  into  disunion  and  anarchy. 

On  taking  the  chair  as  permanent  president  of  the  Southern  Con- 
vention, Mr.  Speed  spoke  of  the  Administration,  of  which  for  the  past 
few  months  he  had  been  a  reluctant  member,  with  a  freedom  which, 
during  his  connection  with  it,  would  have  been  improper  if  not  im- 
possible. He  described  the  late  convention  in  this  place  as  one  with 
which  "  we  could  not  act."  "  Why  was  that  convention  here  ?  It 
was  here  in  part  because  the  great  cry  came  up  from  the  white  man 
of  the  South,  —  My  Constitutional  and  my  natural  rights  are  denied 
me ;  and  then  the  cry  came  up  from  the  black  man  of  the  South,  — 
My  Constitutional  and  my  natural  rights  are  denied  me.  These  com- 
plaints are  utterly  antagonistic,  the  one  to  the  other ;  and  this  con- 
vention is  called  to  say  which  is  right.  Upon  that  question,  if  upon 
none  other,  as  Southern  men,  you  must  speak  out  your  mind.  Speak 
the  truth  as  you  feel  it,  speak  the  truth  as  you  know  it,  speak  the 
truth  as  you  love  permanent  peace,  as  you  may  hope  to  establish  the 
institutions  of  this  Government  so  that  our  children  and  our  children's 
children  shall  enjoy  a  peace  that  we  have  not  known.  .  .  .  The  con- 
vention to  which  I  have  referred,  as  I  read  its  history,  came  here 
to  simply  record  in  abject  submission  the  commands  of  one  man. 
That  convention  did  his  commands.  The  loyal  Congress  of  the 
United  States  had  refused  to  do  his  commands ;  and  whenever  you 
have  a  Congress  that  does  not  resolutely  and  firmly  refuse,  as  the 
present  Congress  has  done,  to  merely  act  as  the  recording  secretary 
of  the  tyrant  at  the  White  House,  American  liberty  is  gone  forever." 

Mr.  Speed's  language  was  a  complete  revelation,  more  emphatic 
than  had  yet  been  made,  of  the  great  differences  which  had  prevailed 
in  the  Cabinet  of  the  President  with  respect  to  his  policy ;  and  his 
words  naturally  created  a  sensation,  not  alone  in  the  convention,  but 
throughout  the  country.  The  fact  of  his  identification  with  the 
President,  in  the  closest  official  intercourse,  ever  since  his  accession, 
added  vastly  to  the  weight  of  Mr.  Speed's  address  and  gave  to  it  an 
influence  which  he  had  not,  perhaps,  anticipated  when  he  delivered 
it.  This  influence  was  doubtless  enhanced  by  the  fact  that  the 
author  of  the  speech  was  a  native  and  citizen  of  the  South.  It  was 


THE  ADDRESS  OF  LOYAL   SOUTHERNERS.  22T 

a  stimulus  to  the  patriotic  zeal  of  Northern  Republicans  to  find  a 
man  from  the  South  taking  advanced  ground  that  possibly  involved 
peril  to  himself  before  the  angry  contest  should  be  finally  settled. 

—  The  address  agreed  upon,  in  the  Southern  Convention  was  in  the 
form  of  an  appeal  "  from  the  loyal  men  of  the  South  to  their  fellow- 
citizens  of  the  United  States."     It  declared  that  the  representatives 
of  eight  millions  of  American  citizens  "appeal  for  protection  and 
justice  to  their  friends  and  brothers  in  the   States  that  have  been 
spared  the  cruelties  of  the  Rebellion  and  the  direct  horrors  of  civil 
war."     "  Having,"  said  the  address,  "  lost  our  champion,  we  return 
to  you  who  can  make  presidents  and  punish  traitors.     Our  last  hope, 
under  God,  is  in  the  unity  and  firmness  of  the  States  that  elected 
Abraham  Lincoln  and  defeated  Jefferson  Davis." 

—  "  We  cannot   better  define   at  once  our  wrongs  and  our  wants 
than  by  declaring,  that   since  Andrew  Johnson  affiliated  with  his 
early  slanderers  and  our  constant  enemies,  his  hand  has  been  laid 
heavily  upon  every  earnest  loyalist  of  the  South." 

—  "  History,  the  just  judgment  of  the  present  and  the  certain  con- 
firmation of  the  future,  invites  and  commands  us  to  declare,  that  after 
neglecting  his  own  remedies  for  restoring  the  Union,  Andrew  John- 
son has  resorted  to  the  weapons  of  traitors  to  bruise  and  beat  down 
patriots." 

—  "  After  declaring   that   none   but  the  loyal   should   govern   the 
reconstructed  South,  he  has  practiced  upon  the  maxim  that  none  but 
traitors  shall  rule." 

-  "  In  the  South  he  has  removed  the  proved  and  trusted  patriot 
from  office,  and  selected  the  unqualified  and  convicted  traitor." 

-  "  After  brave  men,  who  had  fought  the  great  battle  for  the  Union, 
had  been  nominated  for  positions,  their  names  were  recalled  and 
avowed  rebels  substituted." 

"  Every  original  Unionist  in  the  South,  who  stands  fast  to  Andrew 
Johnson's  covenants  from  1861  to  1865,  has  been  ostracized." 
—-"He  has   corrupted   the   local    courts   by  offering  premiums  for 
the  defiance  of  the  laws  of  Congress,  and  by  openly  discouraging  the 
observance  of  the  oath  against  treason." 

"  While  refusing  to  punish  one  single  conspicuous  traitor,  though 
great  numbers  have  earned  the  penalty  of  death,  more  than  one 
thousand  devoted  Union  soldiers  have  been  murdered  in  cold  blood 
since  the  surrender  of  Lee,  and  in  no  cases  have  their  assassins  been 
brought  to  judgment." 


228  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  COXGRESS. 

—  "  He  has  pardoned  some  of  the  worst  rebel  criminals,  North  and 
South,  including  some  who  have  taken  human  life  under  circum- 
stances of  unparalleled  atrocity." 

—  "While  declaring  against  the  injustice  of  leaving  eleven  States 
unrepresented,  he  has  refused  to  authorize  the  liberal  plan  of  Con- 
gress, simply  because  they  have  recognized  the  loyal  majority  and 
refused  to  perpetuate  the  traitor  minority." 

—  "  In  every  State  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line  his  policy  has 
wrought   the   most   deplorable    consequences,  —  social,    moral    and 
political." 

Upon  these  indictments  a  powerful  address  was  based,  giving 
argument,  illustration,  fact  and  indisputable  conclusion.  The  ad- 
dress was  framed  by  Senator  Creswell  of  Maryland,  and  the  style 
and  tone  were  beyond  praise.  It  was  received  with  great  applause 
in  the  convention,  was  adopted  with  unanimity,  and  created  a  pro- 
found influence  upon  the  public  opinion  of  the  North.  It  was  the 
deliberate,  well-conceived  and  clearly  stated  opinion  of  thoughtful 
and  responsible  men,  was  never  disproved,  was  practically  unan- 
swered, and  its  serious  accusations  were  in  effect  admitted  by  the 
South.  The  one  objective  point  proclaimed  in  the  address,  repeated 
in  the  resolutions,  echoed  and  re-echoed  by  every  speaker,  both  in  the 
Northern  and  Southern  Conventions,  was  the  adoption  of  the  Four- 
teenth Amendment.  It  was  evidently  the  unalterable  determination 
of  the  Republicans  to  make  that  the  leading  feature  of  the  cam- 
paign, to  enforce  it  in  every  party  convention,  to  urge  it  through 
the  press,  to  present  it  on  the  stump,  to  proclaim  it  through  every 
authorized  exponent  of  public  opinion.  They  were  determined  that 
the  Democratic  party  of  the  North  should  not  be  allowed  to  ignore 
it  or  in  any  way  to  evade  it.  It  was  to  be  the  Shibboleth  of  the 
Republican  canvass,  and  the  rank  and  file  in  every  loyal  State  were 
engaged  in  its  presentation  and  its  exposition. 

The  friends  of  the  Administration,  feeling  the  disadvantage  under 
which  they  labored  by  an  apparent  combination  of  all  the  earnest 
supporters  of  the  war  for  the  Union  against  them,  sought  to  create 
a  re-action  in  their  favor  by  calling  a  soldiers'  convention  to  meet 
at  Cleveland,  on  the  17th  of  September.  A  considerable  number 
of  respectable  officers  responded  to  the  summons ;  but  relatively  the 
demonstration  was  weak,  ineffective  and  in  the  end  hurtful  to  the 
Administration.  The  venerable  General  Wool  of  the  regular  army, 
the  oldest  major-general  in  the  United  States  at  the  time,  was  made 


SOLDIERS  SUPPORTING  THE  ADMINISTRATION.  229 

president  of  the  convention  and  his  selection  was  significant  of  the 
proceedings.  He  had  been  all  his  life  a  soldier  and  nothing  but  a 
soldier.  He  was  a  major  of  infantry  in  the  war  of  1812  and  had 
been  in  continuous  service  thereafter.  He  denounced  the  Abolition- 
ists after  the  manner  that  had  been  the  custom  in  the  regular  army 
prior  to  the  war.  He  thought  the  convention  had  been  called  to 
protest  against  another  war  which  he  was  sure  the  Abolitionists 
were  determined  to  force  on  the  country.  "Another  civil  war  is 
foreshadowed,"  said  he,  "  unless  the  freedmen  are  placed  on  an  equal- 
ity with  their  previous  masters.  If  this  cannot  be  accomplished, 
radical  partisans,  with  a  raging  thirst  for  blood  and  plunder,  are 
again  ready  to  invade  the  Southern  States  and  lay  waste  the  country 
not  already  desolated,  with  the  sword  in  one  hand  and  the  torch  in 
the  other.  These  revengeful  partisans  would  leave  their  country 
a  howling  wilderness  for  the  want  of  more  victims  to  gratify  their 
insatiable  cruelty.  .  .  .  Let  there  be  peace !  Yet  there  are  those 
among  us  who  are  not  sufficiently  satiated  with  blood  and  plunder, 
and  cry  for  more  war."  General  Wool  would  have  been  severely 
criticised  if  it  had  not  been  remembered  that  for  nearly  sixty  years 
he  had  been  a  faithful  soldier  and  had  loyally  followed  the  flag  of  the 
Union  in  three  wars. 

Many  members  of  the  convention  were  outspoken  Democrats 
and  their  presence,  therefore,  did  not  indicate  any  division  in  the 
Republican  ranks,  —  the  objective  point  to  which  all  the  efforts  of 
the  Administration  were  steadily  addressed.  Conspicuous  represen- 
tatives of  this  class  were  Generals  John  A.  McClernand  of  Illinois, 
J.  W.  Denver  of  California,  Willis  A.  Gorman  of  Minnesota,  James 
B.  Steedman  of  Ohio.  The  delegates  who  had  been  Republicans 
were  all  of  the  most  conservative  type,  and  it  is  believed  that  every 
one  of  them  became  permanently  identified  with  the  Democratic 
party.  The  most  prominent  of  these  were  General  Thomas  Ewing 
of  Kansas,  Governor  Bramlette  and  General  Rousseau  of  Kentucky, 
and  Honorable  Lewis  D.  Campbell  of  Ohio.  General  Gordon  Granger 
and  General  George  A.  Custer  of  the  regular  army  were  very  active 
in  organizing  the  convention.  It  was  evident  that  the  number  of 
soldiers  present  was  small ;  and  the  convention  really  failed  in  its 
principal  aim,  which  was  to  strengthen  the  President  in  the  loyal 
States. 

A  telegram,  expressing  sympathy  with  its  proceedings,  was 
received  by  the  convention  from  a  number  of  Confederate  officers 


230  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

who  were  gathered  at  Memphis.  But  it  was  unfortunate  that  Gen- 
eral N.  B.  Forrest  was  a  conspicuous  signer ;  still  more  unfortunate 
that  the  convention  passed  a  resolution  of  thanks  to  Forrest  and 
his  rebel  associates  for  the  "magnanimity  and  kindness"  of  their 
message.  Forrest's  name  was  especially  odious  in  the  North  for 
his  alleged  guilty  participation  in  the  massacre  at  Fort  Pillow.  All 
other  circumstances  united  did  not  condemn  the  convention  in 
Northern  opinion  so  deeply  as  this  incident.  Further  investigation 
of  the  Fort  Pillow  affair  has  in  some  degree  ameliorated  the  feeling 
against  General  Forrest,  but  at  that  time  his  name  among  the  soldiers 
of  the  Union  was  as  bitterly  execrated  as  was  that  of  the  Master  of 
Stair  among  the  Macdonalds  of  Glencoe,  or  of  Hayiiau,  at  a  later  day, 
among  the  patriots  of  Hungary. 

The  only  noteworthy  speech  in  the  convention  was  delivered  by 
General  Thomas  Ewing.  It  was  able,  but  extreme  in  its  hostility  to 
the  policy  of  Congress.  He  and  Mr.  Browning  were  law-partners  at 
the  time  of  Mr.  Johnson's  accession  to  the  Presidency.  Both  had  sup- 
ported Mr.  Lincoln,  and  both  now  resolved  to  oppose  the  Republican 
party.  General  E wing's  loss  was  regretted  by  a  large  number  of 
friends.  He  had  inherited  talent  and  capacity  of  a  high  order,  was 
rapidly  rising  in  his  profession,  and  seemed  destined  to  an  inviting 
political  career  in  the  party  to  which  he  had  belonged  from  its  first 
organization.  In  supporting  the  policy  of  President  Johnson  he  made 
a  large  sacrifice,  —  large  enough  certainly  to  free  his  action  from  the 
slightest  suspicion  of  any  other  motive  than  conviction  of  duty. 
General  Ewing  has  since  adhered  steadily  to  the  Democratic  party. 

The  fourth  of  the  National  Conventions  which  this  remarkable 
year  witnessed,  was  that  of  the  citizen  soldiers  and  sailors,  held  at 
Pittsburg  on  the  25th  and  26th  of  September.  Nine  out  of  ten, 
perhaps  even  a  larger  proportion,  of  those  who  had  defended  the 
Union  with  arms,  were  hostile  to  the  President's  policy.  As  soon 
therefore  as  it  was  attempted  to  secure  a  political  advantage  for 
the  Administration  by  calling  the  Cleveland  Convention,  the  great 
mass  of  Union  soldiers  demanded  that  a  convention  be  held  in  which 
their  true  position  might  be  proclaimed.  The  response  was  over- 
whelming both  in  numbers  and  enthusiasm.  Pittsburg  was  literally 
overrun.  In  addition  to  the  large  number  of  regimental  and  company 
officers  who  had  done  their  duty  in  the  service,  there  was  an  immense 
outpouring  of  privates.  It  was  said  that  not  less  than  twenty-five 
thousand  who  had  served  in  the  ranks  of  the  Union  army  were 


SOLDIERS  OPPOSING  THE  ADMINISTRATION.  231 

present.  A  private  soldier,  L.  Edwin  Dudley,  was  chosen  temporary 
president,  and  a  majority  of  the  prominent  officers  of  the  convention 
were  privates  and  non-commissioned  officers.  Mr.  Dudley  was  a 
clerk  in  the  Treasury  Department  at  Washington,  and  being  refused 
a  leave  of  absence  for  two  days  to  attend  the  convention,  he  promptly 
resigned  his  place  and  joined  his  brethren  at  Pittsburg.  The  inci- 
dent of  the  resignation  strikingly  illustrates  the  depth  of  feeling 
which  the  contest  between  the  President  and  Congress  had  developed 
among  the  soldiery  of  the  Union. 

Officers  of  high  rank  in  the  volunteer  service  were  not  wanting. 
Generals  Butler  and  Banks  of  Massachusetts,  Palmer  and  Farnsworth 
of  Illinois,  Negley,  Geary,  Hartranft  and  Collis  of  Pennsylvania, 
Cochrane,  Barnum  and  Barlow  of  New  York,  Chamberlain  from 
Maine,  Schenck  and  Cox  from  Ohio,  Duncan  and  Harriman  from  New 
Hampshire,  Daniel  McCauley  of  Indiana,  and  many  of  their  fellow- 
officers,  took  active  and  zealous  part  in  the  convention.  Every  loyal 
State  except  possibly  Oregon  was  represented.  Far-off  California 
and  Nevada,  then  without  the  facility  of  railway  connection,  sent  dele- 
gates. The  border  States  of  the  South  were  present  in  full  force,  and 
Union  men  who  had  borne  their  part  in  the  civil  contest  came  from 
every  Confederate  State.  General  John  A.  Logan  had  been  unani- 
mously elected  as  permanent  president  of  the  convention,  but  at  the 
last  moment  he  found  himself  unable  to  attend  and  his  place  was  filled, 
with  equal  unanimity  of  selection,  by  General  Jacob  D.  Cox  of  Ohio. 
General  Cox,  on  taking  the  chair,  made  an  address  of  great  firmness. 
It  was  even  radical  in  its  positions  and  aggressive  in  its  general  tone. 

He  said  it  was  "  unpleasant  to  recognize  the  truth  that  it  is  in  the 
minds  of  some  to  exalt  the  Executive  Department  of  the  Govern- 
ment into  a  despotic  power  and  to  abase  the  representative  portion 
of  our  Government  into  the  mere  tools  of  despotism.  Learning  that 
this  is  the  case,  we  now,  as  heretofore,  know  our  duty,  and  knowing, 
dare  maintain  it.  The  citizen  soldiery  of  the  United  States  recognize 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  as  the  representative  government 
of  the  people.  We  know  and  all  traitors  know  that  the  will  of  the 
people  has  been  expressed  in  the  complexion  and  character  of  the 
existing  Congress.  .  .  .  We  have  expressed  our  faith  that  the  propo- 
sition which  has  been  made  by  Congress  for  the  settlement  of  all 
difficulties  in  the  country  [the  Fourteenth  Amendment]  is  not  only 
a  wise  policy,  but  one  so  truly  magnanimous  that  the  whole  world 
stood  in  wonder  that  a  people  could,  under  such  circumstances,  be 


232  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

so  magnanimous  to  those  whom  they  had  conquered.  And  when  we 
say  we  are  ready  to  stand  by  the  decision  of  Congress,  we  only  say 
as  soldiers  that  we  follow  the  same  flag  and  the  same  principles  which 
we  have  followed  during  the  war." 

The  resolutions,  read  by  General  B.  F.  Butler,  were  explicit  and 
unqualified  in  their  declarations,  and  were  indorsed  with  absolute 
unanimity.  They  declared  that  "  the  action  of  the  present  Congress 
in  passing  the  pending  Constitutional  amendment  is  wise,  prudent 
and  just.  That  amendment  clearly  defines  American  citizenship  and 
guarantees  all  his  rights  to  every  citizen.  It  places  on  a  just  and 
equal  basis  the  right  of  representation,  making  the  vote  of  a  man  in 
one  State  equally  potent  with  the  vote  of  another  man  in  any  State. 
It  righteously  excludes  from  places  of  honor  and  trust  the  chief  con- 
spirators and  guiltiest  rebels,  whose  perjured  crimes  have  drenched 
the  land  in  blood.  It  puts  into  the  very  frame  of  our  Government 
the  inviolability  of  our  National  obligations,  and  nullifies  forever  the 
obligations  contracted  in  support  of  the  Rebellion."  The  resolu- 
tions further  declared  it  to  be  "  unfortunate  for  the  country  that  the 
propositions  contained  in  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  have  not  been 
received  with  the  spirit  of  conciliation,  clemency  and  fraternal  feel- 
ing in  which  they  were  offered,  as  they  are  the  mildest  terms  ever 
granted  to  subdued  rebels." 

The  members  of  the  convention  were  in  a  tempest  of  anger  against 
the  President.  They  declared  "  that  his  attempt  to  fasten  his  scheme 
of  Reconstruction  upon  the  country  is  as  dangerous  as  it  is  unwise ; 
that  his  acts  in  sustaining  it  have  retarded  the  restoration  of  peace 
and  unity ;  that  they  have  converted  conquered  rebels  into  impudent 
claimants  to  rights  which  they  have  forfeited  and  to  places  which 
they  have  desecrated.  If  the  President's  scheme  be  consummated  it 
would  render  the  sacrifice  of  the  Nation  useless,  the  loss  of  her 
buried  comrades  vain,  and  the  war  in  which  we  have  so  gloriously 
triumphed  a  failure,  as  it  was  declared  to  be  by  President  Johnson's 
present  associates  in  the  Democratic  National  Convention  of  1864." 
Many  other  propositions  of  an  equally  decisive  character  were  an- 
nounced by  the  convention,  and  General  John  Cochrane  declared  that 
"  a  more  complete,  just  arid  righteous  platform  for  a  whole  people  to 
occupy  has  never  before  been  presented  to  the  National  sense." 

Of  the  four  conventions  held,  this,  of  the  soldiers  who  had  fought 
the  battles  of  the  Union,  was  far  the  most  influential  upon  public 
opinion.  In  its  membership  could  be  found  representatives  of  every 


POLITICAL  MURDERS  IN  THE  SOUTH.  233 

great  battle-field  of  the  war.  Their  testimony  was  invaluable.  They 
spoke  for  the  million  comrades  with  whom  they  had  stood  in  the 
ranks,  and  their  influence  consolidated  almost  en  masse  the  soldier 
vote  of  the  country  in  support  of  the  Republican  party  as  repre- 
sented by  Congress.  Their  enthusiasm  was  greater,  their  feeling 
more  intense,  their  activity  more  marked  than  could  be  found  among 
the  civilians  of  the  country  who  were  supporting  the  same  principles. 
They  declared  the  political  contest  to  be  their  own  fight,  as  they 
expressed  it,  and  considered  themselves  bearing  the  banner  of  loyalty 
as  they  had  borne  it  in  the  actual  conflict  of  arms.  Their  convention, 
their  expressions,  their  determination  were  felt  throughout  the  entire 
Union  as  an  aggressive,  irresistible  force.  From  their  ranks  came 
many  of  the  most  attractive  and  most  eloquent  speakers,  who  dis- 
cussed the  merits  of  the  Constitutional  amendment  before  popular 
audiences  as  ably  as  they  had  upheld  the  flag  of  the  Union  through 
four  years  of  bloody  strife.  Their  convention  did  more  to  popularize 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment  as  a  political  issue  than  any  other  instru- 
mentality of  the  year.  Not  even  the  members  of  Congress,  who  re- 
paired to  their  districts  with  the  amendment  as  the  leading  question, 
could  commend  it  to  the  mass  of  voters  with  the  strength  and  with 
the  good  results  which  attended  the  soldier  orators  who  were  inspired 
to  enter  the  field. 


Other  events  powerfully  contributed  to  the  political  overthrow 
of  the  President.  After  the  change  in  his  policy  in  the  summer  and 
autumn  of  1865,  which  has  been  already  noted,  the  Southern  rebels, 
who  had  at  first  been  cast  down  and  discouraged,  saw  before  them 
the  prospect  of  regaining  complete  ascendency  in  their  respective 
States.  As  the  division  between  the  President  and  Congress 
widened,  their  confidence  increased ;  and  as  their  confidence  in- 
creased, a  reign  of  lawlessness  and  outrage  against  the  rights  of  the 
defenseless  was  inaugurated.  The  negroes,  who  had  begun  to  learn 
their  freedom,  were  not  only  subjected  to  laws  of  practical  re-enslave- 
ment, but  to  a  treatment  whose  brutality  could  not  have  been  fore- 
seen. It  was  estimated  that  before  the  adjournment  of  Congress 
more  than  a  thousand  negroes  and  many  white  Unionists  had  been 
murdered  in  the  South,  without  even  the  slightest  attempt  at  prose- 
cuting the  murderers.  Though  the  aggregate  number  of  victims  was 
so  great,  they  were  scattered  over  so  vast  a  territory  that  it  was  diffi- 


234  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

cult  to  impress  the  public  mind  of  the  North  with  the  real  magnitude 
of  the  slaughter.  But  this  incredulity  vanished  in  a  moment  when 
the  nation  was  startled  on  the  30th  of  July,  two  days  after  the 
adjournment  of  Congress,  by  a  massacre  at  New  Orleans,  which  had 
not  the  pretense  of  justification  or  even  of  provocation. 

The  circumstances  that  led  to  it  may  be  briefly  stated.  The 
convention  which  formed  the  free  constitution  of  the  State  in  1864 
was  ordered  to  re-assemble  by  its  president,  upon  authority  which, 
he  held,  was  conferred  upon  him  by  the  convention  at  the  time  the 
constitution  was  formed.  Apprehending  that  some  measures  were 
to  be  taken  hostile  to  the  re-establishment  of  rebel  power  in  the  State 
of  Louisiana,  it  was  resolved  by  the  opponents  of  the  Republican 
party  that  the  members  of  the  convention  should  not  be  allowed  to 
come  together  and  organize.  Threats  were  insufficient  to  effect  this 
end.  Intimidation  of  every  character  had  been  tried  in  vain.  The 
men  who  thought  they  had  the  right,  as  American  citizens,  to  meet 
for  conference  refused  to  be  bullied  out  of  their  plain  privileges  under 
the  guarantees  of  the  National  Constitution.  There  was  a  dispute 
as  to  their  legal  right  to  take  any  action  touching  the  constitution  of 
the  State  —  a  dispute  altogether  proper  for  judicial  inquiry.  Even 
if  they  had  assembled  and  proceeded  to  amend  the  constitution, 
their  action  could  have  had  no  binding  effect  until  approved  by  a 
vote  of  the  people.  The  question  which  lay  at  the*  bottom  of  the 
agitation  was  that  of  negro  suffrage ;  but  the  negroes  were  not  en- 
titled to  vote  under  the  constitution  as  it  stood,  nor  could  they 
vote  upon  an  amendment  to  the  constitution  conferring  the  right  of 
suffrage  upon  them.  Whatever  the  convention  might  do,  therefore, 
would  be  ineffectual  until  approved  by  a  majority  of  the  white  voters 
of  the  State.  It  obviously  followed  that  the  men  who  violently  re- 
sisted the  assembling  of  the  convention  could  not  justify  themselves 
by  the  declaration  that  negro  suffrage  was  about  to  be  imposed  upon 
them.  Their  position  practically  was  that  a  majority  of  the  white 
population  should  not  exercise  the  right  of  giving  suffrage  to  the 
negro. 

When  the  convention  attempted  to  assemble  against  the  desire  and 
remonstrance  of  their  political  opponents,  a  bloody  riot  ensued  —  not 
a  riot  precipitated  by  the  ordinary  material  that  makes  up  the  mobs 
of  cities,  but  one  sustained  by  the  obvious  sympathy  and  the  indirect 
support  of  the  municipal  authorities  of  New  Orleans,  and  by  the 
leading  rebels  of  the  State.  General  Absalom  Baird,  an  able  and  pru- 


POLITICAL  MASSACRE  IN  NEW  ORLEANS  235 

dent  officer  of  the  regular  army,  was  in  command  of  the  district,  but 
was  purposely  deceived  by  the  municipal  authorities,  to  the  end  that 
troops  might  not  be  at  hand  to  quell  the  riot  and  stop  the  assassina- 
tion which  had  been  planned  with  diabolical  ingenuity.  The  slaugh- 
ter, in  point  of  numbers,  resembled  that  of  a  brisk  military  engage- 
ment in  the  field.  The  number  killed  outright  was  about  forty.  The 
wounded  exceeded  one  hundred  and  fifty,  of  whom  perhaps  one-third 
were  severely  injured,  many  of  them  mortally.  The  city  police  of 
New  Orleans  aided  the  rioters.  General  Sheridan,  in  command  of  the 
department,  officially  reported  that  "  the  killing  was  in  a  manner  so 
unnecessary  and  atrocious  as  to  compel  me  to  say  it  was  murder." 
The  lamentable  transaction  was  investigated  by  a  committee  of  Con- 
gress, composed  of  Messrs.  Eliot  of  Massachusetts,  Shellabarger  of 
Ohio,  and  Boyer  of  Pennsylvania,  the  first  two  being  Republicans, 
the  last-named  a  Democrat.  An  investigation  was  also  made  under 
the  direction  of  the  War  Department,  by  a  commission  of  military 
officers,  composed  of  Generals  Mower,  Quincy,  Gregg,  and  Baldy. 
These  officers  reported  that  in  their  opinion  "the  whole  drift 
and  current  of  the  evidence  tend  irresistibly  to  the  conclusion  that 
there  was  among  the  class  of  violent*  known  to  exist  in  the  State, 
and  among  the  members  of  the  ex-Confederate  associations,  a  precon- 
certed plan  and  purpose  of  attack  upon  the  convention,  provided  any 
possible  pretext  therefor  could  be  found. ' 

The  majority  of  the  Congressional  Committee  took  the  same  view, 
declaring  that  "  the  riotous  attack  upon  the  convention  with  its  terri- 
ble results  of  massacre  and  murder  was  not  an  accident.  It  was  the 
determined  purpose  of  the  mayor  of  the  city  of  New  Orleans  to 
break  up  this  convention  by  armed  force."  The  Congressional  Com- 
mittee did  not  make  their  investigation  until  the  succeeding  winter 
session  of  1866-7.  "  We  state  one  fact,"  said  the  committee,  "  signi- 
ficant both  as  bearing  upon  the  question  of  preparation  and  as  indiv 
eating  the  true  and  prevailing  feeling  of  the  people  of  New  Orleans. 
Six  months  have  passed  since  the  convention  assembled,  when  the 
massacre  was  perpetrated  and  more  than  two  hundred  men  were  slain 
and  wounded.  This  was  done  by  city  officials  and  New-Orleans  citi- 
zens, but  not  one  of  those  men  has  been  punished,  arrested  or  even 
complained  of.  These  officers  of  the  law,  living  in  the  city  and  known 
to  that  community,  acting  under  the  eye  of  superiors,  clothed  with 
the  uniform  of  office,  and  some  of  them  known,  as  the  proof  shows, 
to  the  chief  officer  of  police,  have  not  only  escaped  punishment  but 
have  been  continued  in  their  places." 


236  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Not  only  were  the  men  who  instigated  and  committed  the  terrible 
murders  left  unpunished,  but,  as  the  committee  said,  "  the  gentlemen 
who  composed  the  convention  have  not,  however,  been  permitted  to 
escape.  Prosecutions  in  the  criminal  court,  under  an  old  law  passed 
in  1805,  were  at  once  commenced  and  are  now  pending  against  them 
for  breach  of  the  peace."  Another  authority  declares  that  "the 
judge  of  the  criminal  court  in  New  Orleans  instructed  the  grand  jury 
to  find  bills  of  indictment  against  the  members  of  the  convention  and 
the  spectators,  charging  them  with  murder ;  giving  the  principle  of 
law  and  applying  it  in  this  case,  that  whoever  is  engaged  in  an  un- 
lawful proceeding  from  which  death  ensues  to  a  human  being,  is 
guilty  of  murder,  and  alleging  that  as  the  convention  had  no  right 
to  meet  and  the  police  had  killed  many  men  on  the  day  of  its  meet- 
ing, the  survivors  were,  therefore,  guilty  of  murder."  The  Congres- 
sional Committee  did  not  hesitate  to  declare  that  "the  facts  tend 
strongly  to  prove  that  the  criminal  actors  in  the  tragedy  were  the 
agents  of  more  criminal  employe's,  and  demonstrate  the  general  sym- 
pathy of  the  people  in  behalf  of  the  men  who  did  the  wrong  against 
those  who  suffered  the  wrong." 

The  President  came  in  for  a  full  share  of  censure  in  connection 
with  this  unhappy  event.  The  committee  reported  that  "  The  Presi- 
dent knew  that  riot  and  bloodshed  were  apprehended.  He  knew 
what  military  orders  were  in  force,  and  yet,  without  the  confirmation 
of  the  Secretary  of  War  or  the  General  of  the  Army,  upon  whose  re- 
sponsibility these  military  orders  had  been  issued,  he  gave  orders  by 
telegraph,  which  if  enforced,  as  they  would  be,  would  have  com- 
pelled our  soldiers  to  aid  the  rebels  against  the  men  in  New  Orleans 
who  had  rehiained  loyal  during  the  war,  and  sought  to  aid  and  sup- 
port, by  official  sanction,  the  persons  who  designed  to  suppress,  by 
arrest  and  criminal  process  under  color  of  law,  the  meeting  of-  the 
convention;  and  all  this,  although  the  convention  was  called  with 
the  sanction  of  the  governor,  and  by  one  of  the  judges  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  Louisiana  claiming  to  act  as  President  of  the  con- 
vention. The  effect  of  the  action  of  the  President  was  to  encourage 
the  heart,  to  strengthen  the  hand,  and  to  hold  up  the  arms  of  those 
who  intended  to  prevent  the  convention  from  assembling."  Mr. 
Boyer,  the  minority  member  of  the  committee,  submitted  a  report  dis- 
senting from  the  conclusions  of  the  majority,  and  making,  as  nearly 
as  could  be  done,  a  defense  of  the  men  who  had  really  been  the  guilty 
aiders  and  abettors  of  the  crime ;  but  he  did  not  deny  the  fact  of  the 
riot  nor  of  the  great  number  of  its  victims. 


THE  PRESIDENT'S  POLITICAL  TOUR.  237 

The  substantial  correctness  of  the  report  made  by  the  majority 
of  the  Congressional  Committee  was  never  shaken,  though  it  was 
angrily  attacked  by  the  supporters  of  the  Administration.  Aside 
from  the  credit  imparted  to  it  by  the  conscientious  character  of  both 
Mr.  Eliot  and  Mr.  Shellabarger,  the  corroboration  of  all  its  material 
statements  by  the  Commission  of  Army  officers  was  invaluable.  The 
military  men  were  not  suspected  of  partisan  motives.  They  had  no 
political  theories  to  maintain,  no  animosities  to  indulge,  no  personal 
revenges  to  cherish.  They  proceeded  as  coolly  as  though  they  were 
investigating  alleged  frauds  by  army  contractors  or  were  hearing  evi- 
dence touching  the  damage  to  frontier  settlers  by  an  Indian  raid. 
The  intelligence  and  impartiality  of  investigations  entrusted  to  army 
officers  have  become  proverbial,  and  their  report  of  the  facts  in  the 
New  Orleans  riot  arrested  the  attention  of  the  North  in  an  unpre- 
cedented degree.  Every  thing  possible  was  done  by  the  opponents 
of  the  Republican  party  to  break  the  force  of  the  damaging  facts, 
but  apparently  without  success.  Indeed  the  people  of  the  United 
States  have  rarely  been  stirred  to  greater  excitement  than  that 
aroused  by  the  full  details  of  this  nefarious  transaction  as  it  came  to 
them  through  the  public  press  and  through  official  reports.  The 
effect  was  disastrous  to  the  President,  and  was  hurtful,  in  the  ex- 
treme, to  the  cause  of  prompt  reconstruction.  The  Northern  people 
shrank  from  the  responsibility  of  transferring  the  government  of 
States  to  the  control  of  men  who  had  already  shown  themselves  capa- 
ble of  desperate  deeds.  In  their  wrathful  zeal  for  justice  they  would 
hear  no  apology  and  no  defense  of  the  President.  They  held  him  as 
an  accomplice  in  the  crime,  —  as  one  having  in  advance  a  guilty 
knowledge  of  the  pre-arranged  assassination.  In  every  way  in  which 
public  indignation  can  be  expressed,  in  every  form  in  which  public 
anger  can  vent  itself,  the  loyal  people  of  the  Northern  States  mani- 
fested their  feelings,  and  did  not  spare  in  their  bitter  denunciations 
the  personal  character  of  the  President  or  the  unspeakable  guilt  of 
his  Southern  supporters. 

The  bloody  tragedy  of  midsummer,  which  had  weighed  down  the 
people  with  a  sense  of  the  gravest  solicitude,  was  followed  by  what 
might  well  be  termed  its  comedy.  During  the  early  spring  the 
President  had  accepted  an  invitation  from  the  citizens  of  Chicago  to 
attend  the  ceremony  of  laying  a  corner-stone  for  a  monument  to  be 
erected  to  the  memory  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas.  The  date  fixed  for 
the  President's  visit  was  September  6th,  and  he  left  Washington  on 


238  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

the  28th  of  August,  accompanied  by  Secretary  Welles,  Postmaster- 
general  Randall,  General  Grant,  Admiral  Farragut,  by  a  consider- 
able number  of  army  officers  and  by  a  complement  of  private 
secretaries  and  newspaper  reporters,  - —  apparently  intending  to  con- 
vert the  journey  into  a  political  canvass.  Mr.  Seward  joined  the 
company  in  New  York.  The  somewhat  ludicrous  effect  produced  by 
combining  a  series  of  turbulent  partisan  meetings  to  be  addressed 
by  the  President  with  the  solemn  duty  of  paying  respect  to  the 
memory  of  a  dead  statesman,  did  not  fail  to  have  its  effect  upon 
the  appreciative  mind  of  his  countrymen,  and  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end  of  the  tour  there  was  a  popular  alternation  between  harsh 
criticism  and  contemptuous  raillery  of  Mr.  Johnson's  conduct. 

His  journey  was  by  way  of  Philadelphia  and  New  York,  to  Albany ; 
thence  westward  to  Chicago.  At  all  the  principal  cities  and  towns 
along  the  route  large  bodies  of  people  assembled.  Democrat  and 
Republican,  Administration  and  anti-Administration,  were  com- 
mingled. The  President  spoke  everywhere  in  an  aggressive  and  dis- 
putatious tone.  It  has  been  the  decorous  habit  of  the  Chief  Magis- 
trate of  the  country,  when  upon  a  tour  among  his  fellow-citizens,  to 
refrain  from  all  display  of  partisanship,  and  to  receive  popular  con- 
gratulations with  brief  and  cordial  thanks.  President  Johnson, 
however,  behaved  as  an  ordinary  political  speaker  in  a  heated  can- 
vass, receiving  interruptions  from  the  crowd,  answering  insolent 
remarks  with  undignified  repartee,  and  lowering  at  every  step  of  his 
progress  the  dignity  which  properly  appertains  to  the  great  office. 
At  Cleveland  the  meeting  resembled  occasions  not  unfamiliar  to  our 
people,  where  the  speaker  receives  from  his  audience  constant  and 
discourteous  demonstrations  that  his  words  are  unwelcome.  The 
whole  scene  was  regarded  as  lamentable  and  one  which  must  have 
been  deeply  humiliating  to  the  eminent  men  who  accompanied  the 
President. 

He  made  the  tour  the  occasion  for  defending  at  great  length  his 
own  policy  of  Reconstruction,  and  arraigned  with  unsparing  severity 
the  course  of  Congress  in  interposing  a  policy  of  its  own.  The  most 
successful  political  humorist  of  the  day,1  writing  in  pretended  support 
of  the  President,  described  his  tour  as  being  undertaken  "  to  arouse 
the  people  to  the  danger  of  concentrating  power  in  the  hands  of  Con- 
gress instead  of  diffusing  it  through  one  man."  Wit  and  sarcasm 

l  Petroleum  V.  Nasby. 


POPULAR  DEFEAT  OF  THE  ADMINISTRATION.  239 

were  lavished  at  the  expense  of  the  President ,  gibes  and  jeers  and 
taunts  marked  the  journey  from  its  beginning  to  its  end.  "My 
policy "  was  iterated  and  reiterated,  until  the  very  boys  in  the 
streets,  without  knowing  its  meaning,  knew  that  it  was  the  source 
and  subject  of  ridicule,  and  made  it  a  jest  and  a  by-word  at  Mr. 
Johnson's  expense.  The  whole  journey  came  to  be  known  as 
"swinging  around  the  circle,"  and  its  incidents  entered  daily  into 
the  thoughts  of  the  people  only  as  subjects  of  disapprobation  on  the 
part  of  the  more  considerate,  and  of  persiflage  and  ribaldry  on  the  part 
of  those  who  regarded  it  only  as  matter  of  amusement.  With  what- 
ever strength  or  prestige  the  President  left  Washington,  he  certainly 
returned  to  the  Capital  personally  discredited  and  politically  ruined. 
Upon  the  direct  public  issue  which  he  had  raised  he  would  undoubt- 
edly have  been  beaten  in  nearly  all  the  Northern  States,  but  when 
his  weakness  had  brought  him  within  fair  range  of  ridicule,  he 
became  powerless  even  in  the  place  of  power. 


Meanwhile,  during  the  National  Conventions  referred  to  and  dur- 
ing the  remarkable  tour  of  the  President,  the  cause  of  his  opponents 
was  urged  in  every  State  and  in  every  district,  with  extraordinary 
energy  on  the  part  of  leaders,  with  corresponding  interest  on  the  part 
of  the  people.  The  contest  for  the  governorship  of  New  York 
between  Reuben  E.  Fenton  and  John  T.  Hoffman,  and  for  the 
governorship  of  Pennsylvania  between  John  W.  Geary  and  Hiester 
Clymer,  excited  deep  interest  far  beyond  the  borders  of  either  State. 
The  vote  for  these  candidates  was  looked  to  as  giving  the  aggregate 
popular  expression  touching  the  merits  of  the  Administration,  and 
carried  with  it  the  united  interest  which  attached  to  all  the  Con- 
gressional districts.  When  at  last  a  test  was  reached  and  the  people 
had  an  opportunity  to  speak  the  Administration  was  overwhelmingly 
defeated.  Vermont,  usually  so  strong  in  its  Republican  vote,  now 
increased  the  ordinary  majority  by  thousands.  Maine  elected  General 
Chamberlain  governor  by  twenty-eight  thousand  majority. 

Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Indiana  and  Iowa  were  then  all  known  in 
current  phrase  as  October  States.  They  voted  for  members  of  Con- 
gress and  State  officers  on  the  second  Tuesday  of  that  month.  The 
result  was  a  significant  verdict  against  the  Administration.  In  Penn- 
sylvania Geary,  on  a  much  fuller  vote  than  was  cast  at  the  Presiden- 
tial election  two  years  before,  led  Clymer  by  nearly  as  large  a  majority 


240  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

as  that  by  which  Lincoln  led  McClellan.  The  Congressional  election 
resulted  in  the  choice  of  eighteen  Republican  to  six  Democratic  rep- 
resentatives. Ohio,  on  her  State  ticket,  gave  forty-three  thousand 
majority  against  the  Administration,  and  elected  sixteen  Republican 
representatives  in  Congress,  leaving  only  three  districts  to  the  Dem- 
ocrats. In  Indiana,  a  State  always  hotly  contested,  the  Republicans 
secured  the  popular  vote  by  a  majority  of  nearly  fifteen  thousand 
and  carried  every  Congressional  district  except  three.  Iowa  gave 
a  popular  majority  of  thirty-six  thousand  and  carried  every  Con- 
gressional district  for  the  Republicans. 

Under  the  impulse  and  influence  of  these  great  victories  in 
October  the  November  States  recorded  a  like  result  New  York,  of 
course,  absorbed  the  largest  share  of  public  interest.  Two  years 
before,  Lincoln  had  beaten  McClellan  by  less  than  se^n  thou- 
sand votes.  Fenton  had  now  double  that  majority  over  Hoffman 
and  the  Republicans  carried  two-thirds  of  the  Congressional  dis- 
tricts. Throughout  the  West,  Republican  victory  swept  every  thing 
before  it.  Michigan  gave  thirty-nine  thousand  popular  majority  and 
a  unanimous  Republican  delegation  in  Congress.  Illinois  gave  fifty- 
six  thousand  popular  majority,  with  nearly  all  the  representatives. 
Wisconsin  gave  twenty-four  thousand  popular  majority  and  elected 
every  Republican  candidate  for  representative  except  one.  Northern 
States  which  had  been  tenaciously  Democratic  gave  way  under  the 
popular  pressure.  New-Jersey  Republicans  elected  a  majority  of 
the  members  of  Congress  and  a  majority  of  each  branch  of  the  State 
Legislature.  Connecticut  was  carried  by  Governor  Hawley  against 
the  most  popular  Democrat  in  the  State,  James  E.  English.  Cali- 
fornia gave  seven  thousand  majority  for  the  Republicans,  while 
Oregon  elected  a  Republican  governor  and  Republican  representa- 
tive in  Congress. 

The  aggregate  majority  for  the  Republicans  and  against  the 
Administration  in  the  Northern  States  was  about  three  hundred  and 
ninety  thousand  votes.  In  the  South  the  elections  were  as  signifi- 
cant as  in  the  North,  but  in  the  opposite  direction.  Wherever  Re- 
publican or  Union  tickets  were  put  forward  for  State  or  local  offices 
in  the  Confederate  States,  they  were  defeated  by  prodigious  majori- 
ties. Arkansas  gave  a  Democratic  majority  of  over  nine  thousand, 
Texas  over  forty  thousand,  and  North  Carolina  twenty-five  thou- 
sand. The  border  slave  States  were  divided.  Delaware,  Maryland 
and  Kentucky  gave  strong  majorities  for  the  Democrats,  while  West 


PRESIDENTS  JACKSON  AND  JOHNSON  COMPARED.         241 

Virginia  and  Missouri  were  carried  by  the  Republicans.  The  un- 
happy indication  of  the  whole  result  was  that  President  Johnson's 
policy  had  inspired  the  South  with  a  determination  not  to  submit  to 
the  legitimate  results  of  the  war,  but  to  make  a  new  fight  and,  if 
possible,  regain  at  the  ballot-box  the  power  they  had  lost  by  war. 
The  result  of  the  whole  election  was  to  give  to  the  Republicans  one 
hundred  and  forty-three  representatives  in  Congress  and  to  the 
Democrats  but  forty-nine.  The  defeat  was  so  decisive  that  if  the 
President  had  been  wise  he  would  have  sought  a  return  of  friendly 
relations  with  the  party  which  had  elected  him,  or  at  least  some  form 
of  compromise  which  would  have  averted  constant  collision,  with  its 
certainty  of  defeat  and  humiliation.  But  his  disposition  was  unyield- 
ing. His  prejudices  obscured  his  reason. 

It  was  well  known  that  the  President  felt  much  cast  down  by  the 
result.  He  had,  as  is  usual  with  Presidents,  been  surrounded  by 
flatterers,  and  had  not  been  advised  of  the  actual  state  of  public 
opinion.  Political  deserters,  place-seekers  and  personal  sycophants 
had  constantly  assured  the  President  that  his  cause  was  strong  and 
his  strength  irresistible.  They  had  discovered  that  one  of  his  espe- 
cial weaknesses  was  an  ambition  to  be  considered  as  firm  and  heroic 
in  his  Administration  as  General  Jackson  had  proved  in  the  Execu- 
tive chair  thirty  years  before.  He  received,  therefore,  with  evident 
welcome  the  constant  adulation  of  a  comparison  between  his  quali- 
ties and  those  of  General  Jackson,  and  he  came  to  fancy  that  he 
would  prove,  in  his  contest  for  the  unconditional  re-admission  of 
Southern  States  to  representation,  as  mighty  a  power  in  the  land  as 
Jackson  had  proved  in  his  struggle  with  the  Bank  monopolists  and 
with  the  Disunionists  of  South  Carolina.  But  those  who  had  studied 
the  character  of  Johnson  knew  that  aside  from  the  possession  of  per- 
sonal integrity,  he  had  few  qualities  in  common  with  those  which 
distinguished  Jackson.  Johnson  was  bold  and  fluent  in  public  speech, 
irresolute  and  procrastinating  in  action :  Jackson  wasted  no  words, 
but  always  acted  with  promptness  and  courage.  Johnson  was  vain, 
loquacious,  and  offensively  egotistic  :  Jackson,  on  the  other  hand,  was 
proud,  reserved,  and  with  such  abounding  self-respect  as  excluded 
egotism.  The  two  men,  instead  of  being  alike,  were  in  fact  signal 
contrasts  in  all  that  appertains  to  the  talent  for  administration,  to 
the  quick  discernment  of  the  time  for  action,  and  to  the  prompt 
execution  of  whatever  policy  might  be  announced. 

The  Republicans  had  found  an  easier  victory  over  Johnson  than 

VOL.  II.  16 


242  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

they  had  anticipated.  They  were  well  led  in  the  great  contest  of 
1866.  In  New  England  the  President  really  secured  no  Republican 
support  whatever.  Soon  after  his  accession  to  the  Presidency  he 
had  induced  Hannibal  Hamlin,  with  whom  he  had  been  on  terms  of 
personal  intimacy  in  Congress,  to  accept  the  Collectorship  of  Customs 
at  Boston,  but  as  soon  as  Mr.  Hamlin  discovered  the  tendency  of 
Johnson's  policy  he  made  haste,  with  that  strict  adherence  to  prin- 
ciple which  has  always  marked  his  political  career,  to  separate  him- 
self from  the  Administration  by  resigning  the  office.  It  was  urged 
upon  him  that  he  could  maintain  his  official  position  without  in  any 
degree  compromising  his  principles,  but  his  steady  reply  to  earnest 
friends  who  presented  this  view,  was  that  he  was  an  old-fashioned 
man  in  his  conception  of  public  duty,  and  he  would  not  consent  to 
hold  a  political  office  under  a  President  from  whose  policy  .he  instinc- 
tively and  radically  dissented.  Mr.  Hamlin's  course  was  highly 
applauded  by  the  mass  of  Republicans  throughout  the  country,  and 
especially  by  his  old  constituents  in  Maine.  His  action  took  from 
Mr.  Johnson  the  last  semblance  of  a  prominent  Republican  friend  in 
New  England  and  gave  an  almost  unprecedented  solidity  to  the 
public  opinion  of  that  section. 

The  adherence  of  Mr.  Seward  to  the  Administration,  the  loss  of 
Thurlow  Weed  as  an  organizer,  and  the  desertion  of  the  New -York 
Times,  had  created  great  fear  as  to  the  result  in  New  York,  but  the 
popularity  of  Governor  Fenton,  supplemented  by  the  support  of 
Senator  Morgan  and  of  the  younger  class  of  men  then  coming  for- 
ward, of  whom  Roscoe  Conkling  was  the  recognized  chief,  imparted 
an  energy  and  enthusiasm  to  the  canvass  which  proved  irresistible. 
In  Pennsylvania  the  contest  was  waged  with  great  energy  by  both 
parties.  The  result  would  determine  not  merely  the  control  of 
the  local  administration,  not  merely  the  character  of  the  -  delega- 
tion in  Congress,  but  the  future  leadership  of  the  Republican 
party  of  the  State.  Simon  Cameron  sought  a  restoration  to  his 
old  position  of  power  by  a  return  to  the  Senate.  During  the  five 
years  that  had  elapsed  since  he  retired  from  the  War  Department 
Mr.  Cameron's  supremacy  had  been  challenged  by  the  political  coterie 
that  surrounded  Governor  Curtin.  They  boastfully  proclaimed  in- 
deed that  the  sceptre  of  power  was  in  their  hands  and  could  not  be 
wrenched  from  them.  But  the  reaction  against  them  was  strong  and 
did  not  cease  until  Cameron  had  driven  his  leading  enemies  to  seek 
refuge  in  the  Democratic  party. 


THE  QUESTION  OF  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE.  243 

In  the  West  the  hostility  to  the  President  and  the  support  of 
the  policy  of  Congress  were  even  more  demonstrative  than  in  the 
East.  All  the  prominent  Republicans  of  Ohio  were  on  the  stump 
and  the  canvass  was  extraordinarily  heated,  even  for  a  State  which 
has  had  an  animated  contest  every  year  since  the  repeal  of  the  Mis- 
souri Compromise.  Governor  Morton's  candidacy  for  the  Senate 
gave  great  earnestness  to  the  struggle  in  Indiana,  while  Senator 
Chandler  not  only  rallied  Michigan  to  the  necessity  of  giving  an 
immense  majority,  but  with  his  tremendous  vitality  added  nerve 
and  zeal  to  every  contest  in  the  North-western  States.  The  whole 
result  proved  to  be  one  of  commanding  influence  on  the  future 
course  of  public  events.  The  Republicans  plainly  saw  that  the 
triumph  of  President  Johnson  meant  a  triumph  of  the  Democratic 
party  under  an  alias,  that  the  first-fruits  of  such  a  victory  would  be 
the  re-establishment  of  the  late  Confederate  States  in  full  political 
power  inside  the  Union,  and  that  in  a  little  more  than  five  years  from 
the  firing  on  Sumter,  and  a  little  more  than  one  year  from  the  sur- 
render of  Lee,  the  same  political  combination  which  had  threatened 
the  destruction  of  the  Union  would  be  recalled  to  its  control. 

The  importance,  therefore,  of  the  political  struggle  of  1866  cannot 
be  overestimated.  It  has,  perhaps,  been  underestimated.  If  the 
contest  had  ended  in  a  victory  for  the  Democrats  the  history  of  the 
subsequent  years  would,  in  all  probability,  have  been  radically  differ- 
ent. There  would  have  been  no  further  amendment  to  the  Constitu- 
tion, there  would  have  been  no  conditions  of  reconstruction,  there 
would  have  been  such  a  neutralization  of  the  anti-slavery  amendment 
as  would  authorize  and  sustain  all  the  State  laws  already  passed 
for  the  practical  re-enslavement  of  the  negro,  with  such  additional 
enactments  as  would  have  made  them  cruelly  effective.  With  the 
South  re-admitted  and  all  its  representatives  acting  in  cordial  co- 
operation with  the  Northern  Democrats,  the  result  must  have  been  a 
deplorable  degradation  of  the  National  character  and  an  ignoble  sur- 
render to  the  enemies  of  the  Union,  thenceforth  to  be  invested  with 
the  supreme  direction  of  its  government. 

There  was  an  unmistakable  manifestation  throughout  the  whole 
political  canvass  of  1866,  by  the  more  advanced  section  of  the  Repub- 
lican party,  in  favor  of  demanding  impartial  suffrage  as  the  basis  of 
reconstruction  in  the  South.  It  came  from  the  people  rather  than 
from  the  political  leaders.  The  latter  class,  with  few  exceptions, 
shunned  the  issue,  preferring  to  wait  until  public  sentiment  should 


244  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

become  more  pronounced  in  favor  of  so  radical  a  movement.  But  a 
large  number  of  thinking  people,  who  gave  more  heed  to  the  abso- 
lute right  of  the  question  than  to  its  political  expediency,  could  not 
see  how,  with  consistency,  or  even  with  good  conscience  and  common 
sense,  the  Republican  party  could  refrain  from  calling  to  its  aid  the 
only  large  mass  of  persons  in  the  South  whose  loyalty  could  be 
implicitly  trusted.  To  their  apprehension  it  seemed  little  less  than 
an  absurdity,  to  proceed  with  a  -plan  of  reconstruction  which  would 
practically  leave  the  State  governments  of  the  South  under  the  con- 
trol of  the  same  men  that  brought  on  the  civil  war. 

They  were  embarrassed,  however,  in  this  step  by  the  constantly 
recurring  obstacle  presented  by  the  constitutions  of  a  majority  of  the 
loyal  States.  In  five  New-England  States  suffrage  to  the  colored 
man  was  conceded,  but  in  Connecticut  only  those  negroes  were  al- 
lowed to  vote  who  were  admitted  freedmen  prior  to  1818.  New 
York  permitted  a  negro  to  vote  after  he  had  been  three  years  a  citi- 
zen of  the  State  and  had  been  for  one  year  the  owner  of  a  freehold 
worth  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars,  free  of  all  incumbrances.  In 
every  other  Northern  State  none  but  "  white  men  "  were  permitted 
to  vote.  Even  Kansas,  which  entered  the  Union  under  the  shadow 
of  the  civil  war,  after  a  prolonged  and  terrible  struggle  with  the 
spirit  of  slavery,  at  once  restricted  suffrage  to  the  white  man  ;  while 
Nevada,  whose  admission  to  the  Union  was  after  the  Thirteenth 
Amendment  had  been  passed  by  Congress,  denied  suffrage  to  "  any 
negro,  Chinaman  or  mulatto."  A  still  more  recent  test  was  applied. 
The  question  of  admitting  the  negro  to  suffrage  was  submitted  to 
popular  vote  in  Connecticut,  Wisconsin  and  Minnesota  in  the  autumn 
of  1865,  and  at  the  same  time  in  Colorado,  when  she  was  forming 
her  constitution  preparatory  to  seeking  admission  to  the  Union.  In 
all  four,  under  the  control  of  the  Republican  party  at  the  time,  the 
proposition  was  defeated. 

With  these  indisputable  evidences  of  the  unpopularity  of  negro 
suffrage  in  the  great  majority  of  the  Northern  States,  there  was 
ample  excuse  for  the  reluctance  of  leading  statesmen  to  adopt  it  as 
a  condition  of  reconstruction,  and  force  it  upon  the  South  by  law 
before  it  had  been  adopted  by  the  moral  sense  of  the  North.  The 
period,  however,  was  one  calculated  to  bring  about  very  rapid  changes 
in  public  opinion ;  and  there  had  undoubtedly  been  great  advance  in 
the  popular  judgment  concerning  this  question  since  the  elections 
of  the  preceding  year.  The  question  was  really  in  the  position 


THE   FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT.  245 

where  it  would  be  materially  influenced  by  the  course  of  events 
in  the  South.  The  violence  and  murder  at  New  Orleans  in  July 
had  changed  the  views  of  many  men ;  and,  while  the  more  consider- 
ate and  conservative  tried  to  regard  that  outbreak  as  an  exceptional 
occurrence,  the  mass  of  the  Northern  people  feared  that  it  indicated 
a  dangerous  sentiment  among  a  people  not  yet  fitted  to  be  entrusted 
with  the  administration  of  a  State  Government. 

While  these  views  were  rapidly  taking  form  throughout  the 
North,  they  were  strongly  tempered  and  restrained  by  the  better 
hope  that  the  people  of  the  South  would  be  able  to  restore  such  a 
feeling  of  confidence  as  would  prevent  the  exaction  of  other  condi- 
tions of  reconstruction  and  the  consequent  postponement  of  the 
re-admission  of  the  Southern  States  to  representation.  The  average 
Republican  sentiment  of  the  North  was  well  expressed  by  the  Re- 
publican State  Convention  of  New  York,  which,  after  reciting  the 
provisions  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  and  declaring  that  "  That 
amendment  commends  itself,  by  its  justice,  humanity,  and  modera- 
tion, to  every  patriotic  heart,"  made  this  important  declaration : 
"  That  when  any  of  the  late  insurgent  States  shall  adopt  that  amend- 
ment, such  State  shall,  at  once,  by  'its  loyal  representatives,  be  permitted 
to  resume  its  place  in  Congress"  This  view  was  generally  concurred 
in  by  the  Western  States ;  and,  if  the  Southern  States  had  accepted 
the  broad  invitation  thus  given,  there  is  little  doubt  that  before  the 
close  of  the  year  they  might  have  been  restored  to  the  enjoyment  of 
every  power  and  privilege  under  the  National  Constitution.  There 
would  have  been  opposition  to  it,  but  the  weight  of  public  influence, 
and  the  majority  in  both  branches  of  Congress,  would  have  been 
sure  to  secure  this  result. 


CHAPTER    XI. 


SECOND  SESSION  THIRTY-NINTH  CONGRESS. —  PRESIDENT'S  MESSAGE.  —  REPEATS  HIS 
FORMER  RECOMMENDATIONS. —MISCHIEVOUS  EFFECT  PRODUCED  IN  THE  SOUTH.— 
THE  TEN  CONFEDERATE  STATES  VOTE  ON  THE  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT.  —  RE- 
JECTED BY  EVERY  ONE.  —  DEFIANCE  TO  CONGRESS.  —  MADNESS  OF  THE  SOUTHERN 
LEADERS.  —  DETERMINATION  OF  THE  NORTH.  —  NEW  PLAN  OF  RECONSTRUCTION. — 
BILL  REPORTED  BY  MR.  STEVENS. — SOUTH  DIVIDED  INTO  MILITARY  DISTRICTS. — 
BILL  ELABORATELY  DEBATED.  — VlEWS  OF  LEADING  MEMBERS.  —  EXTRACTS  FROM 
SPEECHES.  —  BLAINE  AMENDMENT. — DEBATED  IN  THE  HOUSE.  —  OPPOSED  BY  MR. 
STEVENS.  —  REJECTED  IN  THE  HOUSE.  —  ADOPTED  IN  DIFFERENT  FORM  IN  THE 
SENATE.  —  FINALLY  INCORPORATED  IN  RECONSTRUCTION  BILL.  —  PRESIDENT  VETOES 
THE  BILL.  —  PASSED  OVER  HIS  VETO.  —  CHARACTER  OF  THE  MEASURE.  —  THE  SOUTH 
FORCES  THE  ADOPTION  OF  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE. — NOT  CONTEMPLATED  ORIGINALLY 
BY  THE  NORTH.  —  CHARACTER  OF  THE  STRUGGLE.  —  EXECUTIVE  PATRONAGE. — 
PRESIDENT'S  POLICY  TO  BE  SUSTAINED  BY  IT.  —  THE  POWER  OF  REMOVAL. — EARLY 
DECISION  OF  THE  GOVERNMENT.  — VIEWS  OF  MR.  MADISON  AND  MR.  WEBSTER.— 
OF  HAMILTON  AND  OF  WASHINGTON.  —  REPUBLICAN  LEADERS  DETERMINED  TO 

CURTAIL    THE    POWER. — MR.     WILLIAMS    INTRODUCES    TENURE     OF     OFFICE     BlLL. 

—  SPEECHES  OF  EDMUNDS,  HOWE,  AND  OTHERS.  —  PRESIDENT  VETOES  THE  BILL. — 
PASSED  OVER  HIS  VETO.  —  DOUBTFUL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  MEASURE.  —  REPUBLICAN 
DISTRUST  OF  IT.  —  NEW  STATES  IN  THE  NORTH-WEST.  —  MR.  LINCOLN'S   POLICY 
SHOWN  IN  THE  CASE  OF  NEVADA. — INCREASE  OF  FREE  TERRITORIES. — NEBRASKA 
AND  COLORADO  APPLY  FOR  ADMISSION.  — PRESIDENT  JOHNSON  VETOES  THE  BILL. 

—  ADMISSION  OF  COLORADO  PREVENTED.  —  POWER  OF  PARDON  AND  AMNESTY  BY 
PROCLAMATION  TAKEN  FROM  THE  PRESIDENT.  —  SCANDALS  REPORTED. 

r  I  ^HE  rejoicing  over  the  result  of  the  elections  throughout  the 
JL  free  States  had  scarcely  died  away  when  the  Thirty-ninth  Con- 
gress met  in  its  second  session  (December  3,  1866).  There  was  no 
little  curiosity  to  hear  what  the  President  would  say  in  his  message, 
in  regard  to  the  issue  upon  which  he  had  sustained  so  conclusive  a 
defeat.  He  was  known  to  be  in  a  state  of  great  indignation,  and 
as  he  had  broken  forth  during  the  campaign  in  expressions  altogether 
unbecoming  his  place,  there  was  some  apprehension  that  he  might  be 
guilty  of  the  same  indiscretion,  in  his  official  communication  to  Con- 
gress. But  he  was  saved  from  such  humiliation  by  the  evident  inter- 
position of  a  judicious  adviser.  The  message  was  strikingly  moderate 
and  even  conciliatory  in  tone.  The  President  re-argued  his  case  with 

246 


THE  PRESIDENT'S  MESSAGE.  247 

apparent  calmness  and  impartiality,  repeating  and  enforcing  his  posi- 
tion with  entire  disregard  of  the  popular  result  which  had  so  signifi- 
cantly condemned  him.  After  rehearsing  all  that  had  been  done  in 
the  direction  of  reconstruction,  so  far  as  his  power  could  reach  it,, 
and  so  far  as  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  of  the  Constitution  was  ari 
essential  part  of  it,  the  President  expressed  his  regret  that  Congress 
had  failed  to  do  its  duty  by  re-admitting  the  Southern  States  to 
representation. 

"  It  was  not,"  said  he,  "  until  the  close  of  the  eighth  month  of 
the  session  that  an  exception  was  made  in  favor  of  Tennessee  by 
the  admission  of  her  senators  and  representatives."  "  I  deem  it,"  he 
continued,  "  a  subject  of  profound  regret  that  Congress  has  thus  far 
failed  to  admit  to  seats  loyal  senators  and  representatives  from  the 
other  States,  whose  inhabitants  with  those  of  Tennessee  had  engaged 
in  the  Rebellion.  Ten  States,  more  than  one-fourth  of  the  whole 
number,  remain  without  representation.  The  seats  of  fifty  members 
in  the  House  and  twenty  members  in  the  Senate  are  yet  vacant,  not 
by  their  own  consent,  nor  by  a  failure  of  election,  but  by  the  refusal 
of  Congress  to  accept  their  credentials.  Their  admission,  it  is  be- 
lieved, would  have  accomplished  much  towards  the  renewal  and 
strengthening  of  our  relations  as  one  people,  and  would  have  removed 
serious  cause  for  discontent  upon  the  part  of  the  inhabitants  of  those 
States."  The  President  did  not  discuss  the  ground  of  difference 
between  his  policy  and  that  of  Congress,  simply  contenting  himself 
with  a  restatement  of  the  case,  in  declaratory  rather  than  in  argu- 
mentative form.  He  did  not  at  all  seem  to  realize,  or  even  to  recog- 
nize, the  vantage  ground  which  Congress  had  obtained  by  the  popular 
decision  in  the  recent  elections.  He  apparently  did  not  understand 
that  every  issue  dividing  the  Executive  and  Legislative  Depart- 
ments of  the  Government  had  been  decided  in  favor  of  the  latter 
by  the  masters  of  both  —  decided  by  those  who  select  and  control 
Presidents  and  Congresses. 

The  President's  position  in  pursuing  a  policy  w,hich  had  been  so 
pointedly  condemned,  excited  derision  and  contempt  in  the  North, 
but  it  led  to  mischievous  results  in  the  South.  The  ten  Confederate 
States  which  stood  knocking  at  the  door  of  Congress  for  the  right 
of  representation,  were  fully  aware,  as  was  well  stated  by  a  leading 
Republican,  that  the  key  to  unlock*  the  door  had  been  placed  in  their 
own  hands.  They  knew  that  the  political  canvass  in  the  North  had 
proceeded  upon  the  basis,  and  upon  the  practical  assurance  (given 


248  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

through  the  press,  and  more  authoritatively  in  political  platforms), 
that  whenever  any  other  Confederate  State  should  follow  the  exam- 
ple of  Tennessee,  it  should  at  once  be  treated  as  Tennessee  had 
been  treated.  Yet,  when  this  position  had  been  confirmed  by  the 
elections  in  all  the  loyal  States,  and  was,  by  the  special  warrant  of 
popular  power,  made  the  basis  of  future  admission,  these  ten  States, 
voting  upon  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  at  different  dates  through 
the  winter  of  1866-67,  contemptuously  rejected  it.  In  the  Virginia 
Legislature  only  one  vote  could  be  found  for  the  Amendment.  In 
the  North-Carolina  Legislature  only  eleven  votes  out  of  one  hundred 
and  forty-eight  were  in  favor  of  the  Amendment.  In  the  South- 
Carolina  Legislature  there  was  only  one  vote  for  the  Amendment. 
In  Georgia  only  two  votes  out  of  one  hundred  and  sixty-nine  in  the 
Legislature  were  in  the  affirmative.  Florida  unanimously  rejected 
the  Amendment.  Out  of  one  hundred  and  six  votes  in  the  Alabama 
Legislature  only  ten  could  be  found  in  favor  of  it.  Mississippi  and 
Louisiana  both  rejected  it  unanimously.  Texas,  out  of  her  entire 
Legislature,  gave  only  five  votes  for  it,  and  the  Arkansas  Legislature, 
which  had  really  taken  its  action  in  the  preceding  October,  gave 
only  three  votes  for  the  Amendment. 

This  course  on  the  part  of  the  Southern  States  was  simply  a 
declaration  of  defiance  to  Congress.  It  was  as  if  they  had  said  in 
so  many  words,  "  We  are  entitled  to  representation  in  Congress,  and 
we  propose  to  resume  it  on  our  own  terms ;  and  therefore  we  reject 
your  conditions  with  scorn.  We  will  not  consent  to  your  Fourteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution.  We  will  not  consent  that  the  free- 
dom of  the  negro  shall  be  made  secure  by  endowing  him  with  citi- 
zenship. We  demand  that  without  giving  negroes  the  right  to 
vote,  they  shall  yet  be  counted  in  the  basis  of  representation,  thus 
increasing  our  political  power  when  we  re-enter  Congress  beyond,  that 
which  we  enjoyed  before  we  rebelled,  and  beyond  that  which  white 
men  in  the  North  shall  ever  enjoy.  We  decline  to  give  any  guaran- 
tee for  the  validity  of  the  public  debt.  We  decline  to  guarantee  the 
sacredness  of  pensions  to  soldiers  disabled  in  the  War  for  the  Union. 
We  decline  to  pledge  ourselves  that  the  debts  incurred  in  aid  of  the 
Rebellion  shall  not  in  the  fv^ire  be  paid  by  our  States.  We  decline, 
in  brief,  to  assent  to  any  of  the  conditions  or  provisions  of  the  pro- 
posed amendment  to  the  Constitution,  and  we  deny  your  right  to 
amend  it  without  our  consent." 

The  madness  of  this  course  on  the  part  of  the  Southern  leaders 


HOSTILITY  TO   THE  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT.  249 

was  scarcely  less  than  the  madness  of  original  secession ;  and  it  is 
difficult,  in  deliberately  weighing  all  the  pertinent  incidents  and 
circumstances,  to  discover  any  motive  which  could,  even  to  their  own 
distorted  view,  justify  the  position  they  had  so  rashly  taken.  Strong 
as  the  Republican  party  had  shown  itself  in  the  elections,  it  grew 
still  stronger  in  all  the  free  States,  as  each  of  the  Confederate  States 
proclaimed  its  refusal  to  accept  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  as  the 
basis  of  their  return  to  representation.  The  response  throughout 
the  North,  in  the  mouths  of  the  loyal  people,  was  in  effect :  "  If  these 
rebel  States  are  not  willing  now  to  resume  representation  on  the 
terms  offered,  let  them  stay  out  until  their  anger  ceases  and  their 
reason  returns.  If  they  are  not  willing  to  concede  the  guaranties  of 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  and  to  give  that  pledge  to  the  country 
of  their  future  loyalty  and  their  common  sense  of  justice,  they  shall 
find  that  we  can  be  as  resolute  as  they,  and  we  shall  insist  on  the 
right  as  stubbornly  as  they  persist  in  the  wrong."  These  were  not 
merely  the  declarations  of  statesmen,  or  of  the  press,  or  of  the  pop- 
ular speakers  of  the  Republican  party.  They  came  spontaneously, 
as  if  by  inspiration,  from  the  mass  of  the  people,  and  were  based  on 
that  instinctive  sense  of  justice  which  the  multitude  rarely  fails  to 
exhibit. 

It  was  naturally  inferred  and  was  subsequently  proved,  that  the 
Southern  States  would  not  have  dared  to  take  this  hostile  attitude 
except  with  the  encouragement  and  the  unqualified  support  of  the 
President.  He  was  undoubtedly  in  correspondence,  directly  and  in- 
directly, with  the  political  powers  that  were  controlling  the  action  of 
the  insurrectionary  States,  and  he  was  determined  that  the  policy 
of  Congress  should  not  have  the  triumph  that  would  be  implied  in  a 
ratification  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  by  those  States.  Tele- 
graphic correspondence  clearly  establishing  the  President's  position, 
subsequently  came  to  light.  Governor  Parsons  of  Alabama  tele- 
graphed him  indicating  that  the  rejection  of  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment might  be  reconsidered  by  the  Alabama  Legislature,  if  in 
consequence  thereof  an  enabling  Act  could  be  passed  by  Congress 
for  the  admission  of  the  State  to  representation.  Johnson  promptly 
replied  on  the  same  day :  "  What  possible  good  can  be  obtained  by 
reconsidering  the  Constitutional  Amendment?  I  know  of  none  in 
the  present  posture  of  affairs,  and  I  do  not  believe  the  people  of  the 
country  will  sustain  any  set  of  individuals  in  attempts  to  change  the 
whole  character  of  our  Government  by  enabling  Acts  or  otherwise. 


250  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

I  believe  on  the  contrary,  that  they  will  eventually  uphold  all  those 
who  have  patriotism  and  courage  to  stand  by  the  Constitution  and 
who  place  their  confidence  in  the  people.  There  should  be  no  falter- 
ing on  the  part  of  those  who  are  honest  in  a  determination  to  sustain 
the  several  co-ordinate  Departments  of  the  Government  in  accord- 
ance with  its  original  design."  It  was  evident  from  this  disclosure 
that  Johnson's  hand  was  busy  throughout  the  South,  secretly  as  well 
as  openly,  and  that  he  inspired  the  resolute  obstinacy  with  which  the 
insurrectionary  States  resisted  the  fair  and  magnanimous  offers  of 
Reconstruction  made  by  Congress.  The  Rebel  element  of  the  South 
had  gradually  come  to  repose  implicit  confidence  in  Johnson,  and 
this  fact  increased  his  power  to  sow  dissension  and  produce  discord. 
His  stubborn  and  apparently  malicious  course  at  this  time,  was  in- 
spired in  large  part  by  a  desire  to  be  avenged  on  the  Northern  States 
and  Northern  leaders  for  the  stinging  rebuke  administered  to  him  in 
the  recent  elections. 


Sustained  by  the  same  popular  sentiment  which  had  given  offense 
to  the  President,  Congress  did  not  doubt  its  duty  or  hesitate  in  its 
action.  Its  course,  indeed,  was  firm  to  the  point  of  severity.  It  met 
the  spirit  of  defiance  on  the  part  of  the  South  with  an  answer  so 
decisive,  that  the  misguided  people  of  that  section  were  rapidly  un- 
deceived as  to  their  power  to  command  the  situation,  even  with  all 
the  aid  the  President  could  bring.  The  principal  debates  for  the 
first  two  months  of  the  session  related  wholly  to  the  condition  of 
the  South,  and  on  the  6th  of  February  (1867)  Mr.  Stevens,  from  the 
Committee  on  Reconstruction,  reported  a  bill  which  after  sundry 
amendments  became  the  leading  measure  of  the  Thirty-ninth  Con- 
gress. In  its  original  form  the  preamble  declared  that  "  whereas  the 
pretended  State  governments  of  the  late  so-called  Confederate  States 
afford  no  adequate  protection  for  life  or  property,  but  countenance 
and  encourage  lawlessness  and  crime ;  and  whereas  it  is  necessary 
that  peace  and  good  order  should  be  enforced  in  said  so-called  Con- 
federate States,  until  loyal  State  governments  can  be  legally  estab- 
lished ;  therefore  be  it  enacted  that  said  so-called  Confederate  States 
shall  be  divided  into  military  districts,  and  made  subject  to  the  mili- 
tary authority  of  the  Ur  ited  States,  as  hereinafter  prescribed ;  and 
for  that  purpose  Virginia  shall  constitute  the  first  district,  North 
Carolina  and  South  Carolina  the  second  district,  Georgia,  Alabama 


THE  RECONSTRUCTION  BILL.  251 

and  Florida  the  third  district,  Mississippi  and  Arkansas  the  fourth 
district,  and  Louisiana  and  Texas  the  fifth  district." 

It  was  made  the  duty  of  the  General  of  the  Army  to  assign  to 
the  command  of  each  of  said  districts  an  officer  not  below  the  rank 
of  Brigadier-general,  and  to  detail  a  sufficient  force  to  enable  such 
officer  to  perform  his  duties  and  enforce  his  authority  within  the 
district  to  which  he  was  assigned.  The  protection  of  life  and  prop- 
erty, the  suppression  of  insurrections,  disorders,  and  violence,  and 
the  punishment  of  all  criminals  and  disturbers  of  the  public  peace, 
were  entrusted  to  the  military  authority,  with  the  power  to  allow  civil 
tribunals  to  take  jurisdiction  and  try  offenders ;  and  if  that  was  not 
sufficient  in  the  officer's  judgment,  he  was  authorized  to  organize 
military  commissions,  "any  thing  in  the  constitutions  and  laws  of 
these  so-called  Confederate  States  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding." 
It  was  further  declared  that  all  legislative  acts  or  judicial  processes 
to  prevent  the  proceedings  of  such  tribunals,  and  all  interference  by 
usaid  pretended  State  governments  with  the  exercise  of  military 
authority  under  this  Act,  shall  be  void  and  have  no  effect."  The 
courts  and  judicial  officers  of  the  United  States  were  forbidden  to 
issue  writs  of  habeas  corpus,  except  under  certain  restrictions  which 
further  established  the  military  authority  over  the  people.  Prompt 
trials  were  guarantied  to  all  persons  arrested,  cruel  and  unusual  pun- 
ishments were  forbidden,  and  no  sentence  could  be  executed  until 
it  was  approved  by  the  officer  in  command  of  the  district. 

Mr.  Stevens,  in  his  speech  upon  introducing  the  bill,  did  not 
attempt  to  conceal  its  positive  and  peremptory  character.  "  It  pro- 
vides," said  he,  "  that  the  ten  disorganized  States  shall  be  divided 
into  five  military  districts ;  that  the  Commander  of  the  Army  shall 
take  charge  of  them,  through  his  officers  not  below  the  rank  of  Brig- 
adier-general, who  shall  have  the  general  supervision  of  the  peace, 
quiet  and  protection  of  the  people,  loyal  and  disloyal,  who  reside 
within  those  precincts ;  and  that  to  do  so,  he  may  use,  as  the  law  of 
nations  would  authorize  him  to  do,  the  legal  tribunals  whenever  he 
may  deem  them  competent ;  but  -these  tribunals  are  to  be  considered 
of  no  validity  per  se,  of  no  intrinsic  force,  of  no  force  in  consequence 
of  their  origin  ;  the  question  being  wholly  within  the  power  of  the 
conqueror,  and  to  remain  until  that  conqueror  shall  permanently 
supply  their  place  with  something  else.  This  is  the  whole  bill.  It 
does  not  need  much  examination.  One  night's  rest  after  its  reading 
is  enough  to  digest  it." 


252  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Mr.  Brandegee  of  Connecticut  followed  Mr.  Stevens  in  a  speech 
strongly  supporting  the  measure.  "  Mr.  Speaker,  something  must 
be  done,"  said  he.  "  The  American  people  demand  that  we  shall  do 
something,  and  quickly.  Already  fifteen  hundred  Union  men  have 
been  massacred  in  cold  blood  (more  than  the  entire  population  of 
some  of  the  towns  in  my  district),  whose  only  crime  has  been  loyalty 
to  your  flag.  ...  In  all  the  revolted  States,  upon*  the  testimony  of 
your  ablest  generals,  there  is  no  safety  to  the  property  or  lives 
of  loyal  men.  Is  this  what  the  loyal  North  has  been  fighting  for  ? 
Thousands  of  loyal  white  men,  driven  like  partridges  over  the  moun- 
tains, homeless,  houseless,  penniless,  to-day  throng  this  capital.  They 
fill  the  hotels,  they  crowd  the  avenues,  they  gather  in  these  marble 
corridors,  they  look  down  from  these  galleries,  and  with  supplicating 
eye  ask  protection  from  the  flag  that  hangs  above  the  Speaker's  chair 

—  a  flag  which  thus  far  has  unfurled  its  stripes,  but  concealed  the 
promise  of  its  stars." 

—  Mr.  Le  Blond  of  Ohio  declared  that  "the  provisions  of  this  bill 
strike   down  every  important  provision  in  the  Constitution.     You 
have  already  inaugurated  enough  here  to  destroy  any  government 
that  was  ever  founded.  .  .  .  Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  predict  any 
thing.     I  do  not  desire  war,  but  as  one  American  citizen  I  do  prefer 
war  to  cowardly  submission  to  a  total  destruction  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  our  Government." 

—  He  was  followed  by  his  colleague,  Mr.  Finck,  who  declared  that 
"  no  member  on  this  floor  who  understands  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  who  is  a  friend  of  our  Government,  will  pretend 
to  urge  that  we  have  any  Constitutional  power  to  pass  this  bill.  .  .  . 
I  declare  it  as  my  solemn  conviction  that  no  government  can  long 
continue  to  be  free  when  one-third  of  its  people  and  one-third  of  its 
States  are  controlled  by  military  power." 

—  Mr.  Bingham  of  Ohio,  speaking  for  a  more  conservative  type  of 
republicanism  than  Mr.  Stevens  represented,  begged  gentlemen   to 
"make  haste  slowly  in  the  exercise  of  this  highest  possible  power 
conferred  by  the  Constitution  upon    the  Congress  of  the    United 
States.     For  myself,  sir,  I  am  not  going  to  yield  to  the  proposition  of 
the  chairman  of  the  committee,  for  a  single  moment,  that  one  rood 
of  the  territory  within  the  line  of  the  ten  States  enumerated  in  this 
bill  is  conquered  territory.     The  Government  of  the  United  States 
does  not  conquer  any  territory  that  is  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Constitution." 


DEBATE  ON  THE   RECONSTRUCTION  BILL.  253 

— Mr.  William  Lawrence  of  Ohio  said,  "For  myself  I  am  ready  to 
set  aside  by  law  all  these  illegal  governments.  They  have  rejected 
all  fair  terms  of  reconstruction.  They  have  rejected  the  Constitu- 
tional amendments  we  have  tendered  them.  They  are  engines  of 
oppression  against  all  loyal  men.  They  are  not  republican  in  form 
or  purpose.  Let  them  not  only  be  ignored  as  legal  governments,  but 
set  aside  because  they  are  illegal."  Mr.  Lawrence  suggested  some 
amendments  that  would  give  to  all  the  people  the  protection  of  the 
judiciary  under  National  authority. 

—  Mr.  Russell  Thayer  of  Pennsylvania  argued  warmly  for  the  bill, 
and  said,  uThis   measure  will   be   of  brief  duration,  and  will  be 
followed,  as  I  am  informed,  by  other  measures,  which  will  secure  the 
permanent  and  peaceful  restoration  of  these  States  to  their  proper 
and  just  position  in  the  Union,  upon  their  acceptance  of  such  terms 
as  are  necessary  for  the  future  security  of  the  country.     When  that 
is  done,  and  when  order  is  restored,  and  permanent  protection  is 
guarantied  to  all  the  citizens  of  that  section  of  the  country,  this 
measure  will  be  abrogated  and  abandoned." 

—  Mr.  Shellabarger  argued  in  favor  of  the  bill,  and  said  in  conclu- 
sion, "  This  measure,  taken  alone,  is  one  which  I  could  not  support 
unaccompanied  by  provisions  for  the  rapid  and  immediate  establish- 
ment of  civil  government  based  upon  the  suffrages  of  the  loyal  people 
of  the  South.     I  could  not  support  a  military  measure  like  this  if  it 
was  to  be  regarded  as  at  all  permanent  in  its  character.     It  is  because 
it  is  entirely  the  initiative,  because  it  is  only  the  employment  of  the 
Army  of  the  United  States  as  a  mere  police  force,  to  preserve  order 
until  we  can  establish  civil  government  based  upon  the  loyal  suffrages 
of  the  people,  that  I  can  support  this  measure  at  all.     If  it  stood  by 
itself,  I  could  not,  with  my  notions  of  the  possibility  and  practica- 
bility of  establishing  civil  governments  in  the  South,  based  upon 
loyal  suffrage,  vote  for  this  bill." 

—  Mr.  Dawes  made  the  pertinent  inquiry  whether,  "  after  the  Gen- 
eral of  the  Army  has,  under  this  bill,  assigned  a  competent  and  trust- 
worthy officer  to  the  duties  prescribed,  there  is  any  thing  to  hinder 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  under  virtue  of  his  power  as 
Commander-in-Chief,  from  removing  that  officer  and  putting  in  his 
place  another  of  an  opposite  character,  thus  making  the  very  instru- 
mentality we  provide  one  of  terrible  evil  ?  " 

—  Mr.  John  A.  Griswold,  who  became  the  Republican  candidate  for 
governor  of  New  York  the  ensuing  year,  earnestly  opposed  the  bill. 


254  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

"  By  it,"  said  he,  "  we  are  proceeding  in  the  wrong  direction.  For 
more  than  two  years  we  have  been  endeavoring  to  provide  civil  gov- 
ernments for  that  portion  of  our  country,  and  yet  by  the  provisions 
of  this  bill  we  turn  our  backs  on  our  policy  of  the  last  two  years,  and 
by  a  single  stride  proceed  to  put  all  that  portion  of  the  country  under 
exclusively  military  control.  .  .  .  For  one,  I  prefer  to  stand  by  the 
overtures  we  have  made  to  these  people,  as  conditions  of  their  again 
participating  in  the  government  of  the  country.  We  have  already 
placed  before  them  conditions  which  the  civilized  world  has  indorsed 
as  liberal,  magnanimous,  and  just.  I  regret  exceedingly  that  those 
very  liberal  terms  have  not  been  accepted  by  the  South,  but  I  prefer 
giving  those  people  every  opportunity  to  exhibit  a  spirit  of  obedience 
and  loyalty." 

—  Mr.  Henry  J.  Raymond  opposed  the  bill  in  a  vigorous  speech. 
"  Because  we  cannot  devise  any  thing  of  a  civil  nature  adequate  to 
the  emergency,"  said  he,  "it  is  urged  that  we  must  fly  to  the  most  vio- 
lent measure  the  ingenuity  of  man  could  devise.    Let  me  remind  gen- 
tlemen that  this  has  been  the  history  of  popular  governments  every- 
where, the  reason  of  their  downfall,  their  decadence,  and  their  death." 

—  Mr.  Garfield  indicated  his  support  of  the  measure  if  it  could  be 
amended.     "  But,"  said  he,  "  I  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  from 
the  collapse  of  the  Rebellion  to  the  present  hour,  Congress  has  under- 
taken to  restore  the  States  lately  in  rebellion  by  co-operation  with 
their  people,  and  that  our  efforts  in  that  direction  have  proven  a  com- 
plete and  disastrous  failure."     Alluding  to  the  fact  that  the  Four- 
teenth Amendment  had  been  submitted  as  the  basis  of  reconstruction, 
Mr.  Garfield   continued,    "The    constitutional   amendment  did  not 
come  up  to  the  full  height  of  the  great  occasion.     It  did  not  meet  all 
I  desired  in  the  way  of  guaranties  to  liberty,  but  if  the  rebel  States 
had  adopted  it  as  Tennessee  did,  I  should  have  felt  bound  to  let  them 
in  on  the  same  terms  prescribed  for  Tennessee.     I  have  been  in- favor 
of  waiting  to  give  them  full  time  to   deliberate  and  to  act.     They 
have  deliberated.     They  have  acted.     The  last  one  of  the  sinful  ten 
has  at  last,  with  contempt  and  scorn,  flung  back  in  our  teeth  the 
magnanimous  offer  of  a  generous  nation.     It  is  now  our  turn  to  act. 
They  would  not  co-operate  with  us  in  building  what  they  destroyed. 
We  must  remove  the  rubbish,  and  build  from  the  bottom.  .  .  .  But 
there  are  some  words  which  I  want  stricken  out  of  this  bill,  and  some 
limitations  which  I  wish  added,  and  I  shall  at  least  ask  that  they  be 
considered." 


DEBATE  ON  THE   RECONSTRUCTION  BILL.  255 

—  Mr.  Kasson  objected  that  the  bill  was  too  sweeping  in  its  provis- 
ions, that  it  affected  the  loyally  disposed  in  the  South  with  the  same 
severity  as  it  did  the  disloyally  disposed.    "  Instead  of  erecting,"  said  he, 
"  this  great  military  power  over  people  of  some  portions  of  the  South 
who  are,  in  fact,  at  peace  and  observing  law  and  order,  our  rule  should 
be  so  flexible  that  we  may  apply  martial  law  wherever  peace  and  law 
and  order  do  not  prevail,  without  imposing  it   upon  people  whose 
subordination  to  the  law  renders  military  rule  unnecessary." 

—  Mr.  Boutwell  said,  "  To-day  there  are  eight  millions  and  more 
of  people,  occupying  six  hundred  and  thirty  thousand  square  miles  of 
territory  in  this  country,  who  are  writhing  under  cruelties  nameless 
in  their  character,  and  injustice  such  as  has  not  been  permitted  to 
exist  in  any  other  country  of  modern  times ;  and  all  this  because  in 
this  capital  there  sits  enthroned  a  man  who,  so  far  as  the  Executive 
Department  of  the  Government  is  concerned,  guides  the  destinies  of 
the  Republic  in  the  interest  of  the  rebels ;  and  because,  also,  in  those 
ten  former  States,  rebellion  itself,  inspired  by  the  Executive  Depart- 
ment of  this  Government,  wields  all  authority,  and  is  the  embodi- 
ment of  law  and  power  everywhere.  ...  It  is  the  vainest  delusion, 
the  wildest  of  hopes,  the  most  dangerous  of  aspirations,  to  contem- 
plate the  reconstruction  of  civil  government  until  the  rebel  despot- 
isms enthroned  in  power  in  these  ten  States  shall  be  broken  up." 

—  Mr.  Banks  asked  for  deliberation  and  delay  in  the  discussion.     He 
believed  that  "  we  might  reach  a  solution  in  which  the  two  Houses 
of  Congress  will  agree,  which  the  people  of  this  country  will  sus- 
tain, and  in  which  the  President  of  the  United  States  will  give  us 
his  support.     And  if  we  should  agree  on  a  measure  satisfactory  to 
ourselves,  in  which  we  should  be  sustained  by  the  people,  and  the 
President  should  resist  it,  then  we  should  be  justified  in  dropping 
the  subject  of  reconstruction,  and  considering  the  condition  of  the 
country   in   a   different   sense."     The    allusion   of    General   Banks, 
though  thus  veiled,  was  understood  to  imply  the  possible  necessity 
of  impeaching  the  President.     It  attracted  attention  because  General 
Banks  had  been  reckoned  among  the  determined  opponents  of  that 
extreme  measure. 

—  Mr.  Kelley  of  Pennsylvania  declared  that  "the  passage  of  this 
bill  or  its  equivalent  is  required  by  the  manhood  of  this  Congress,  to 
save  it  from  the  hissing  scorn  and  reproach  of  every  Southern  man 
who  has  been  compelled  to  seek  a  home  in  the  by-ways  of  the  North, 
from  every  homeless  widow  and  orphan  of  a  Union  soldier  in  the 


256  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

South,  who  should  have  been  protected  by  the  Government,  and  who, 
despite  widowhood  and  orphanage,  would  have  exulted  in  the  power 
of  our  country  had  it  not  been  for  the  treachery  of  Andrew  Johnson." 

—  Mr.  Allison  of  Iowa  said,  "  Believing  as  I  do,  that  this  measure  is 
essential  to  the  preservation  of  the  Union  men  of  the  South,  believ- 
ing that  their  lives,  property  and  liberty  cannot  be  secured  except 
through  military  law,  I  am  for  this  bill." 

—  Mr.  Elaine  of  Maine  expressed  his  unwillingness  to  support  any 
measure  that  would  place  the  South  under  military  government,  if  it 
did  not  at  the  same  time  prescribe  the  methods  by  which  the  people 
of  a  State  could  by  their  own  action  re-establish  civil  government. 
He  therefore  asked  Mr.  Stevens  to  admit  an  amendment  declaring 
that  "  when  any  one  of  the  late,  so-called,  Confederate  States  shall 
have  given  its  assent  to  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  conformed  its  constitution  and  laws  thereto  in  all  respects, 
and  when  it  shall  have  provided,  by  its  constitution,  that  the  elective 
franchise  shall  be  enjoyed  equally  and  impartially  by  all  male  citizens 
of  the  United  States  twenty-one  years  of  age  and  upwards,  without 
regard  to  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude,  except  such 
as  may  be  disfranchised  for  participating  in  the  late  rebellion,  and 
when  such  constitution  shall  have  been  submitted  to  the  voters  of 
said  State  as  then  denned,  for  ratification  or  rejection,  and  when  the 
constitution,  if  ratified  by  the  popular  vote,  shall  have  been  submitted 
to  Congress  for  examination  and  approval,  said  State  shall,  if  its  con- 
stitution be  approved  by  Congress,  be  declared  entitled  to  represen- 
tation in  Congress,  and  senators  and  representatives  shall  be  admitted 
therefrom  on  their  taking  the  oath  prescribed  by  law,  and  then  and 
thereafter  the  preceding  sections  of  this  bill  shall  be  inoperative  in 
said  State." 

—  Mr.  Blaine  added,  "  It  happened,  Mr.  Speaker,  possibly  by  mere  acci- 
dent, that  I  was  the  first  member  of  this  House  who  spoke  in  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole  on  the  President's  message  at  the  opening  of  this  ses- 
sion.   I  then  said  that  I  believed  the  true  interpretation  of  the  election 
of  1866  was  that,  in  addition  to  the  proposed  constitutional  amend- 
ment, impartial  suffrage  should  be  the  basis  of  reconstruction.     Why 
not  declare  it  so  ?     Why  not,  when  you  send  out  this  military  police 
through  the  lately  rebellious  States,  send  with   it  that  impressive 
declaration  ?  " 

—  Mr.  Schenck  of  Ohio  earnestly  urged  that  before  calling  the  pre- 
vious question,  Mr.  Stevens  would  allow  a  vote  upon  the  amendment 


DEBATE  ON  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  BILL.  257 

offered  by  Mr.  Elaine.  Mr.  Stevens  declined,  and  a  motion  by  Mr. 
Blaine  to  refer  the  bill  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  with  instructions 
to  report  back  the  amendment,  was  defeated  by  ayes  69,  noes  94. 
The  bill  was  then  passed  by  a  vote  of  109  to  55.  The  Republicans 
who  voted  against  it  were  Baker  of  Illinois,  Banks  of  Massachusetts, 
Davis  of  New  York,  Defrees  of  Indiana,  Dodge  of  Iowa,  Kuykendall 
of  Illinois,  Loan  of  Missouri,  Randall  of  Kentucky,  Francis  Thomas 
and  John  L.  Thomas,  jun.,  of  Maryland. 

The  bill  reached  the  Senate  on  the  13th  of  February.  On  the 
14th  Mr.  Williams  of  Oregon  gave  notice  that  he  would  offer  an 
amendment,  which  was  almost  literally  the  same  as  that  offered  by 
Mr.  Blaine  in  the  House,  but  fearing  that  it  might  obstruct  the  pas- 
sage of  the  bill  he  withdrew  it.  Mr.  Reverdy  Johnson  of  Maryland 
renewed  it,  with  the  remark  that  if  it  should  be  adopted  it  would 
make  the  bill  very  much  less  objectionable  than  it  then  was,  and 
upon  the  amendment  debate  proceeded. 

Mr.  Stewart  of  Nevada  warmly  sustained  the  amendment,  re- 
gretting that  the  senator  from  Oregon  had  changed  his  mind  with 
regard  to  it.  Mr.  Stewart  said  that  the  history  of  military  bills  was 
that  they  were  always  temporary  in  the  beginning.  "  But  suppose 
the  President  of  the  United  States  approved  it,  or  the  next  Presi- 
dent, if  you  please,  should  like  the  bill,  and  should  veto  your  measure 
repealing  it,  or  suppose  a  bare  majority  in  either  House  of  Congress 
should  like  it,  then  you  could  not  repeal  it.  It  may  be  years  after 
you  desire  to  get  rid  of  it  before  you  can.  I  say,  when  you  use  the 
military  for  temporary  purposes  you  should  give  the  people  of  the 
South  a  chance  to  comply  with  all  the  requirements  which  you  pro- 
pose to  make.  If  in  the  Blaine  Amendment,  as  it  is  called,  there  are 
not  sufficient  guaranties,  not  enough  conditions,  then  put  in  more 
and  make  it  sufficient." 

—  Mr.  Henderson  of  Missouri  said,  "If  I  understand  the  extent 
and  scope  of  this  bill,  it  will  simply  be  to  give  the  sanction  of  Con- 
gress to  military  administration  in  the  Southern  States  by  the  Presi- 
dent. If  there  is  any  thing  else  in  it,  I  desire  to  have  it  understood 
now,  before  we  proceed  any  farther.  I  am  not  exceedingly  favorable 
to  military  government  anywhere,  and  if  I  can  get  along  without  it 
in  the  Southern  States  I  am  anxious  to  do  so.  I  am  not  pleased  with 
it  anywhere."  Mr.  Henderson  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  could  command  General  Grant  in  making 
the  assignments  of  officers  to  the  respective  districts. 

VOL.  II.  17 


258  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

—  Mr.  Willard  Saiilsbiiry  of  Delaware  declared  that  "  there  is  not 
a  single  provision  in  the  bill  that  is  constitutional  or  will  stand  the 
test  in  any  court  of  justice." 

—  Mr.  Buckalew  and  Mr.  Hendricks  pointed  out  that  the  amend- 
ment, as  Mr.  Johnson  had  submitted  it,  made  suffrage  universal,  just 
as  the  amendment  had  been  framed  in  the  House. 

—  Mr.  Johnson  explained  that  he  had  taken  it  as  prepared  by  the 
senator  from  Oregon. 

—  Mr.  Howard  of  Michigan  objected  to  the  amendment  because  it 
would  permit  the  increase  of  representatives  in  Congress,  and  of 
Presidential  electors,  from  the  Confederate  States. 

—  After  prolonged  debate  on  the  amendment  offered  by  the  senator 
from  Maryland,  it  was  agreed  to  lay  it  aside  by  common  consent,  that 
Senator  Sherman  might  offer  a  substitute  for  the  entire  bill,  the  fifth 
section  of  which  substantially  embodied  the  amendment  offered  by 
the  senator  from  Maryland  and  which  had  been  known  as  the  Elaine 
Amendment  in  the  House.     Mr.  Sherman's  substitute  gave  to  the 
President  his  rightful  power  to  control  the  assignment  of  officers 
of  the  army  to  the  command  of  the  military  districts  in  the  South. 
After  debate  the  substitute  of  Mr.  Sherman  was  passed  by  a  party 
vote,  —  twenty-nine  to  ten. 

When  the  bill  went  to  the  House  it  was  violently  opposed  by  Mr. 
Stevens  and  Mr.  Boutwell.  Mr.  Boutwell  said,  "My  objection  to 
the  proposed  substitute  of  the  Senate  is  fundamental  and  conclusive, 
because  the  measure  proposes  to  reconstruct  the  State  governments 
at  once  through  the  agency  of  disloyal  men." 

—  Mr.  Stevens  said,  "  When  this  House  sent  the  bill  to  the  Senate  it 
was  simply  to  protect  the  loyal  men  of  the  Southern  States.     The 
Senate  has  sent  us  back  an  amendment  which  contains  every  thing 
else  but  protection.     It  has  sent  us  back  a  bill  which  raises  the  whole 
question  in  dispute  as   to   the   best  mode   of  reconstructing   these 
States,  by  making  distant  and  future  pledges  which  this  Congress 
has  no  authority  to  make  and  no  power  to  execute." 

—  Mr.  Elaine  argued  against  Mr.  Stevens's  proposition  to  send  the 
measure  to  a  Conference  Committee,  and  he  begged  those  "  who  look 
to  any  measure  that  shall  guarantee  a  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment to  the  rebel  States,  with  universal  suffrage  for  loyal  men,"  to 
vote  for  this  bill  as  it  came  from  the  Senate. 

—  Mr.  Wilson  of  Iowa  sustained  the  bill.     "Although  it  does  not 
jattain,"  said  he,  "  all  that  I  desire  to  accomplish,  it  embraces  much 


DEBATE  ON  THE   RECONSTRUCTION  BILL.  259 

upon  which  I  have  insisted,  and  seems  to  be  all  that  I  can  get  at  this 
session.  It  reaches  far  beyond  any  thing  which  the  i  lost  sanguine  of 
us  hoped  for  a  year  ago." 

—  Mr.  Bingham  declared  that  "  the  defeat  of  this  bill  to-day  is  really 
a  refusal  to  enact  any  law  whatever  for  the  protection  of  any  man  in 
that  vast  portion  of  our  country  which  was  so  recently  swept  over 
by  our  armies  from  the  Potomac  to  the  Rio  Grande." 

—  General  Schenck  spoke  with  great  force  in  favor  of  the  bill,  an- 
swering the  somewhat  reckless  objections  of  Mr.  Stevens  in  the  most 
effective  manner. 

—  General  Garfield  replied  to  those  who  objected  to  the  Senate  pro- 
vision giving  the  command  of  officers  in  the  South  directly  to  the 
President.     He  said,  "  I  want  this  Congress  to  give  its  command  to 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  then,  perhaps,  some  impeach- 
ment hunters  will  have  a  chance  to  impeach  him.     They  will  if  he 
does  not  obey."     He  rebuked  the  gentlemen  uwho,  when  any  meas- 
ure comes  here  that  seems  almost  to  grasp  our  purpose,  resist  and 
tell  us  that  it  is  a  surrender  of  liberty.     I  remember  that  this  was 
done  to  us  at  the  last  session,  when  everybody  knew  that  if  the  Re- 
publican party  lived,  it  must  live  by  the  strength  of  the  Constitu- 
tional  amendment,  and   wh  n   we   agreed  to  pass   it  the  previous 
question  was  waived  to  allow  certain  gentlemen  to  tell  us  that  it  was 
too  low  and  too  unworthy,  too  mean  and  too  unstatesmanlike." 

—  Mr.  Russell  Thayer  of  Pennsylvania  supported  the  bill.     He  said, 
"  I  see  in  this  provision,  as  I  believe,  what  the  deliberate  judgment 
of  the   American  people  will   regard   as  ample  guaranties   for  the 
future  loyalty  and  obedience  of  the  South.     Those  conditions  are : 
first,  that  the  Southern  States  shall  adopt  a  constitution  in  conformity 
with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  second,  that  it  shall  be 
ratified  by  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the  State,  without  distinction 
of  race,  color,  or  condition ;  third,  that  such  constitution  shall  guar- 
antee universal  and  impartial  suffrage ;  fourth,  that  such  constitution 
shall   be   approved  by  Congress ;  fifth,  that  the  States  shall  adopt 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution ;  and  sixth,  that  the 
amendment  shall  become  a  part  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.     All  this  is  required  to  be  done  before  representation  is  ac- 
corded to  the  States  lately  in  rebellion,  and  then  no  representative 
presenting  himself  for  admission,  can  be  received  unless  he  can  take 
the  test  oath." 

—  Mr.  Eldridge  of  Wisconsin  denounced  the  whole  measure  as  most 


260  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

wicked  find  abominable.  "It  contains,"  said  he,  "all  that  is  vicious, 
all  that  is  miscl  ievous  in  any  of  the  propositions  which  have  come 
either  from  the  Committee  on  Reconstruction  or  from  any  g6  ntleman 
upon  the  other  side  of  the  House." 

—  Mr.  Elijah  Hise  of  Kentucky  declared  that,  "under  such  a  sys- 
tem as  this  bill  proposes,  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  cannot  exist,  be- 
cause even  if  the  civil  tribunals  are  not  entirely  abolished,  they  will 
exist  only  at  the  will  of  the  military  tyrant  in  command."        , 

—  Mr.  Davis  of  New  York  spoke  of  the  danger  of  suddenly  enfran- 
chising the  whole  body  of  rebels.     "  The  State  of  Kentucky,"  he  said,, 
"has  enfranchised  every  rebel  who  has  been  in  the  service  of  the 
Confederate  States.     "What  to-day  is  the  condition  of  affairs  in  that 
State?     Why,  sir,  her  political  power  is  wielded  by   rebel   hands. 
Rebel  generals,  wearing  the  insignia  of  the  rebel  service,  walk  the 
streets  of  her  cities,  admired  and  courted ;  while  the  Union  officers,, 
with  their  wounds  yet  unhealed,  are  ostracized  in  political,  commer- 
cial and  social  life." 

—  Mr.  Niblack   of  Indiana,  one   of  the  leading  Democrats  of  the 
House,  thought  the  bill  had  been  much  improved  by  the  action  of 
the  Senate.     "  Though,"  said  he,  "  it  still  retains  many  of  the  first 
features  to  which  I  objected  when  it  was  before  the  House  for  dis- 
cussion, it  is  not  now  properly  a  military  bill,  nor  is  it  properly  a 
measure  of  civil  administration.     It  is  a  most  extraordinary  attempt 
to  blend  the  two  principles  together." 

When  a  vote  was  reached,  the  House  rejected  the  Senate  amend- 
ment—  ayes  73,  noes  98.  This  result  was  effected  by  a  coalition  of  all 
the  Democrats  with  a  minority  of  extreme  Republicans.  But  thir- 
teen days  of  the  session  remained,  and  it  looked  as  if  by  a  disagree- 
ment of  Republicans  all  legislation  on  the  subject  of  Reconstruction 
would  be  defeated.  Under  the  pressure  of  this  fear  Republican  dif- 
ferences were  adjusted,  and  the  Senate  and  the  House  found  common 
ground  to  stand  upon  by  adding  two  amendments  to  the  bill  as  the 
Senate  had  framed  it.  It  was  agreed,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Wilson  of 
Iowa,  to  add  a  proviso  to  the  fifth  section,  in  these  words :  "  that  no 
person  excluded  from  the  privilege  of  holding  office  by  said  proposed 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  eligible 
as  a  member  of  a  convention  to  frame  a  constitution  for  any  of  said 
rebellious  States,  nor  shall  any  such  person  vote  for  members  of  such 
convention."  It  was  also  agreed,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Shellabarger,  that 
"  until  the  people  of  said  rebel  States  shall  be  admitted  to  repre- 


VETO  OF  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  BILL.  261 

sentation  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  any  civil  govern- 
ments which  may  exist  therein  shall  be  deemed  provisional  only,  and 
in  all  respects  subject  to  the  paramount  authority  of  the  United 
States  at  any  time  to  abolish,  modify,  control,  or  supersede.  .  .  .  All 
persons  shall  be  entitled  to  vote,  and  none  others,  who  are  entitled 
to  vote  under  the  fifth  section  of  this  act ;  and  no  person  shall  be 
eligible  to  any  office  under  such  provisional  government,  who  shall 
be  disqualified  from  holding  office  under  the  provisions  of  the  Third 
Article  of  such  Constitutional  amendment."  With  these  modifications 
both  Senate  and  House  passed  the  bill  by  a  party  vote.  During  the 
discussion  in  the  Senate  Mr.  Doolittle  moved  that  "  nothing  in  this 
act  shall  be  construed  to  disfranchise  any  persons  in  any  of  said 
States  from  voting  or  holding  office  who  have  received  pardon  and 
amnesty  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution  and  Laws."  The 
proposition  received  but  eight  votes.  The  bill  went  to  the  President 
for  approval  on  the  20th  of  February,  leaving  but  a  small  margin  of 
time  for  passage  over  his  veto  if  as  anticipated  he  should  decline  to 
sign  it.  The  decisive  character  of  the  measure  had  evoked  fierce 
opposition,  and  this  in  turn  had  stimulated  Republican  advocacy  to  a 
degree  of  great  earnestness. 

On  the  2d  of  March  the  President  sent  to  the  House,  in  which 
branch  the  bill  had  originated,  a  long  veto  message  of  very  compre- 
hensive character.  He  had  summed  up  all  the  arguments  that  had 
been  made  against  the  measure  in  both  Houses,  and  had  arrayed 
them  with  greater  strength  than  when  they  were  originally  pre- 
sented. His  argument  against  placing  the  States  under  military 
government  was  cogently  stated.  "This  bill,"  said  he,  "imposes 
martial  law  at  once,  and  its  operation  will  begin  as  soon  as  the  gen- 
eral and  his  troops  can  be  put  in  place.  The  dread  alternative 
between  its  harsh  rule  and  compliance  with  the  terms  of  this  meas- 
ure is  not  suspended,  nor  are  the  people  afforded  any  time  for  free 
deliberation.  The  bill  says  to  them,  'Take  martial  law  first,  and 
then  deliberate.'  And  when  they  have  done  all  that  this  measure 
requir  s  them  to  do,  other  conditions  and  contingencies,  over  which 
they  have  no  control,  yet  remain  to  be  fulfilled  before  they  can  be 
relieved  from  martial  law.  Another  Congress  must  approve  the 
constitutions  made  in  conformity  with  the  law  of  this  Congress,  and 
must  declare  these  States  entitled  to  representation  in  both  branches. 
The  whole  question  thus  remains  open  and  unsettled,  and  must 
again  occupy  the  attention  of  Congress ;  and  in  the  mean  time  the 


262  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

agitation  which  now  prevails  will  continue  to  disturb  all  portions  of 
the  people." 

The  President's  veto  reached  the  House  on  the  afternoon  of  Sat- 
urday. On  Monday,  March  4th,  at  noon,  Congress  would  expire  by 
Constitutional  limitation.  The  President  had  communicated  his  veto 
on  the  last  day  permitted  by  the  Constitution,  and  it  was  generally 
believed  that  his  motive  for  the  postponement  was  to  give  the  minor- 
ity in  one  branch  or  the  other  the  power  to  defeat  the  bill  either  by 
dilatory  motions  or  by  "  talking  against  time."  Mr.  Le  Blond  and 
Mr.  Finck  of  Ohio,  and  Mr.  Boyer  of  Pennsylvania,  frankly  indicated 
their  intention  to  employ  all  means  within  their  power  to  compass 
this  end.  A  system  of  parliamentary  delay  was  thus  foreshadowed, 
but  was  prevented  by  Mr.  Blaine  moving  that  the  rules  be  suspended 
and  a  vote  immediately  taken  on  the  question  required  by  the  Con- 
stitution ;  namely,  "  Witt  the  House,  on  reconsideration,  agree  to  the 
passage  of  the  bill,  the  President's  objection  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing ?  "  The  Speaker  decided  that  the  motion  in  this  form  cut 
off  all  dilatory  proceedings.  Mr.  Finck  appealed  from  the  decision 
of  the  Chair,  but  only  four  members  sustained  him.  The  rules  were 
suspended,  and  the  House,  by  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  thirty-five 
ayes  to  forty-eight  noes,  passed  the  bill  over  the  veto  of  the  President. 
The  Senate  concurred  in  the  action  of  the  House  by  ayes  thirty-eight, 
noes  ten;  and  the  famous  Reconstruction  law,  from  which  flowed 
consequences  of  great  magnitude,  was  thus  finally  enacted  against 
every  effoit  of  the  Executive  Department  of  the  Government.1 


The  successive  steps  of  this  legislation  have  been  given  some- 
what in  detail  because  of  its  transcendent  importance  and  its 
unprecedented  character.  It  was  the  most  vigorous  and  determined 
action  ever  taken  by  Congress  in  time  of  peace.  The  effect  pro- 
duced by  the  measure  was  far-reaching  and  radical.  It  changed  the 
political  history  of  the  United  States.  But  it  is  well  to  remember 
that  it  never  could  have  been  accomplished  except  for  the  conduct 
of  the  Southern  leaders.  The  people  of  the  States  affected  have 
always  preferred  as  their  chief  grievance  against  the  Republican 
party,  that  negro  suffrage  was  imposed  upon  them  as  a  condition  of 

1  The  original  Reconstruction  Act  and  the  several  supplementary  Acts  are  given  in 
full  in  Appendix  A. 


THE  SOUTH  AND  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE.         263 

their  re-admission  to  representation ;  but  this  recital  of  the  facts  in 
their  proper  sequence  shows  that  the  South  deliberately  and  wit- 
tingly brought  it  upon  themselves.  The  Southern  people  knew,  as 
well  as  the  members  of  Congress  knew,  that  the  Northern  people 
during  the  late  political  canvass  were  divided  in  their  opinion  in 
regard  to  the  requirements  of  reconstruction,  but  that  the  strong 
preponderance  was  in  favor  of  exacting  only  the  adoption  of  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment  as  the  condition  of  representation  in 
Congress.  It  was  equally  plain  to  all  who  cared  to  investigate,  or 
even  to  inquire,  that  if  that  condition  should  be  defiantly  rejected, 
the  more  radical  requirements  would  necessarily  be  exacted  as  a 
last  resort,  —  rendered  absolutely  necessary  indeed  by  the  truculence 
of  the  Southern  States. 

The  arguments  that  persuaded  the  Northern  States  of  the  necessity 
of  this  step  were  simple  and  direct.  "  We  are  willing,"  said  they,  "  that 
the  Southern  States  shall  themselves  come  gradually  to  recognize  the 
necessity  and  the  expediency  of  admitting  the  negro  to  suffrage ;  we 
are  content,  for  the  present,  to  invest  him  with  all  the  rights  of  citizen- 
ship, and  to  except  him  from  the  basis  of  representation,  allowing  the 
South  to  choose  whether  he  shall  remain,  at  the  expense  of  their  de- 
crease in  representation,  outside  of  the  basis  of  enumeration."  It  was 
the  belief  of  the  North  that  as  the  passions  of  the  civil  contest  should 
die  out,  the  Southern  States,  if  not  inspired  by  a  sense  of  abstract 
justice,  would  be  induced  by  the  highest  considerations  of  self-inter- 
est to  enfranchise  the  negro,  and  thus  increase  their  power  in  Con- 
gress by  thirty-five  to  forty  members  of  the  House.  It  was  the 
belief  that  when  they  should  come  to  realize  that  the  negro  had 
brought  to  them  this  increased  power  and  prestige  in  the  National 
councils,  they  would  treat  him  with  justice  and  with  fairness.  It 
was,  therefore,  not  merely  with  surprise,  but  with  profound  regret, 
and  even  with  mortification,  that  the  North  found  the  South  in  an 
utterly  impracticable  frame  of  mind.  They  would  do  nothing :  they 
would  listen  to  nothing.  They  had  been  inspired  by  the  President 
with  the  same  unreasoning  tenacity  and  stubbornness  that  distin- 
guished his  own  official  conduct.  They  believed  that,  even  against 
the  popular  verdict  in  the  North,  the  President  would  in  the  end 
prevail.  They  had  unbounded  faith  in  the  power  of  patronage,  f  nd 
they  constantly  exhorted  the  President  to  turn  every  opponent  of 
his  policy  out  of  office,  and  give  only  to  his  friends  the  honors  and 
emoluments  of  the  National  Government.  They  had  full  faith  that 


264  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

this  would  carry  consternation  to  the  Republican  ranks,  and  would 
establish  the  President's  power  on  a  firm  foundation. 

Unless,  therefore,  the  Loyal  States  were  willing  to  allow  the 
Rebel  States  to  come  back  on  their  own  terms,  in  a  spirit  of  dictation 
to  the  Government  of  the  Union,  they  were  under  the  imperious 
necessity  of  providing  some  other  basis  of  reconstruction  than  the 
one  which  the  South  had  unitedly  rejected.  Congress  was  charged, 
in  the  name  of  loyalty,  to  see  that  no  harm  should  come  to  the 
Republic,  and  the  point  was  now  reached  where  three  ways  were 
open  :  first,  Congress  might  follow  the  Administration,  and  allow  the 
States  to  come  in  at  once  without  promise,  without  condition,  with- 
out guarantee  of  any  kind ;  second,  it  might  adopt  the  plan  of  Mr. 
Stevens,  which  had  just  been  narrowly  defeated,  and  place  the  South- 
ern States  under  military  government,  with  no  date  assigned  for  its 
termination  by  National  authority,  and  no  condition  held  out  by 
which  the  South  itself  could  escape  from  it;  third,  it  might  place 
the  Southern  States  temporarily  under  a  military  government,  for  the 
sake  of  preserving  law  and  order  and  the  rights  of  property,  during 
the  prescribed  period  of  reconstruction — upon  the  basis  that  all  loyal 
men,  regardless  of  color  or  previous  condition  of  servitude,  should 
take  part  in  the  movement. 

Reduced  to  the  choice  of  these  three  methods,  the  considerate, 
well-pondered,  conclusive  judgment  of  the  Republican  party  was  in 
favor  of  the  last  named,  and  the  last  named  was  adopted.  If,  there- 
fore, suffrage  was  prematurely  granted  to  the  negro ;  if,  in  conse- 
quence, harm  came  to  the  Southern  States ;  if  hardship  was  inflicted 
upon  Southern  people,  the  responsibility  for  it  cannot  be  justly  laid 
upon  Northern  sentiment  or  upon  the  Republican  party.  It  is  true, 
and  was  not  denied,  that  the  vast  mass  of  the  negroes  thus  admitted 
to  suffrage  were  without  property  and  without  education,  and  that  it 
might  have  been  advantageous,  if  just  treatment  could  have  been  as- 
sured them,  that  they  should  tarry  for  a  season  in  a  preparatory  state.' 
While  it  was  maintained  as  an  abstract  proposition  that  the  right  of 
the  negro  to  vote  was  well  grounded,  many  thought  it  desirable,  as 
Mr.  Lincoln  suggested,  that  at  first  only  those  who  were  educated 
and  those  who  had  served  in  the  Union  Army  should  be  enfranchised. 
Bub  the  North  believed,  and  believed  wisely,  that  a  poor  man,  an 
ignorant  man,  and  a  black  man,  who  was  thoroughly  loyal,  was  a 
safer  and  a  better  voter  than  a  rich  man,  an  educated  man,  and  a  white 
man,  who,  in  his  heart,  was  disloyal  to  the  Union.  This  sentiment 


THE  SOUTH  AND, NEGRO  SUFFRAGE.         265 

prevailed,  not  without  hesitation,  not  without  deep  and  anxious  de- 
liberation ;  but  in  the  end  it  prevailed  with  the  same  courage  and 
with  the  same  determination  with  which  the  party  had  drawn  the 
sword  and  fought  through  a  long  war  in  aid  of  the  same  cause,  for 
which  the  negro  was  now  admitted  to  suffrage. 

During  the  civil  war  the  negro  had,  so  far  as  he  was  able,  helped 
the  Union  cause  —  his  race  contributing  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  mil- 
lion troops  to  the  National  service.  If  the  Government  had  been 
influenced  by  a  spirit  of  inhumanity,  it  could  have  made  him  terribly 
effective  by  encouraging  insurrection  and  resistance  on  his  part 
against  his  master.  But  no  such  policy  was  ever  entertained  in 
counsels  controlled  in  the  Cabinet  by  Seward  and  Chase  and  Stan- 
ton,  or  in  operations  in  the  field  directed  by  Grant  and  Sherman 
and  Sheridan.  The  negro  was  left  to  raise  the  crops  that  supplied 
the  Confederate  armies  with  bread,  when  a  policy  of  cruelty,  no  worse 
than  that  of  Andersonville  and  Belle  Isle,  might  have  made  him  a 
terror  to  thp  Southern  population.  The  humane  policy  thus  pursued 
would  have  been  scorned  by  European  warriors  who  have  become 
the  heroes  of  the  world,  but  there  is  not  a  Northern  man  who  does 
not  look  back  with  profound  satisfaction  upon  the  philanthropic 
determination  that  forbade  the  encouragement  of  a  single  insurrec- 
tion, or  the  destruction  of  a  single  Southern  life,  except  under  the 
recognized  and  restricted  laws  of  war. 

Peace  had  now  come,  and  the  question  was,  whether  the  power 
of  these  four  and  a  half  millions  of  men  should  be  continually  used 
against  the  Northern  States,  against  the  loyalty  which  had  saved 
the  Union.  Only  three-fifths  of  their  number,  in  the  day  when  the 
Southern  States  were  true  to  the  Union,  were  admitted  in  the  basis 
of  representation.  Should  the  disloyalty  of  the  South  which  had 
failed  to  destroy  the  Government  only  by  lack  of  power,  be  now 
rewarded  by  admitting  the  whole  number  of  negroes  into  the  basis 
of  representation,  and  at  the  same  time  giving  them  no  voice  in  the 
selection  of  representatives  ?  Surely,  if  this  were  conceded,  it  would 
offer  such  a  premium  upon  rebellion  as  no  government  guided  by 
reason  should  confer;  and,  therefore,  the  question  came  by  the 
instinct  of  justice,  and  with  the  precision  of  logic,  to  this  point  — 
the  negro  shall  not  be  admitted  into  the  basis  of  representation  until 
he  is  himself  empowered  to  participate  in  the  choice  of  the  repre- 
sentative. The  North  had  hoped  that  the  South  would  cordially 
accept  the  justice  of  this  principle,  but  whether  the  South  accepted  it 


266  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

or  not,  the  North  resolved  that  it  should  become  part  of  the  organic 
law  of  the  Republic. 

As  matter  of  historical  truth  which  has  been  ingeniously  and  con* 
tinuously,  whether  ignorantly  or  malignantly,  perverted,  this  point 
cannot  be  too  fully  elaborated  nor  too  forcibly  emphasized :  —  The 
Northern  States  or  the  Republican  party  which  then  wielded  the  aggre- 
gate political  power  of  the  North,  did  not  force  negro  suffrage  upon  the 
South  or  exact  it  as  a  condition  of  re-admitting  the  Southern  States  to 
the  right  and  privilege  of  representation  in  Congress  until  after  other 
conditions  had  been  rejected  by  the  South.  The  privilege  of  resuming 
representation  in  Congress  had  in  effect  been  tendered  to  the  South- 
ern States,  upon  the  single  condition  that  they  would  ratify  the  Four- 
teenth Amendment,  which  provided  among  other  safeguards  for  the 
future,  that  so  long  as  the , negro  was  denied  suffrage,  he  should  not 
be  included  in  the  basis  of  Federal  enumeration,  —  in  other  words, 
that  the  white  men  of  the  South  should  not  be  allowed  to  elect  thirty- 
five  or  forty  representatives  to  Congress,  based  on  the  negro  popula- 
tion, in  addition  to  the  representatives  duly  apportioned  to  their  own 
numbers.  When  all  the  Southern  States  —  with  the  exception  of 
Tennessee  —  declined  to  accept  this  basis  of  reconstruction  by  their 
rejection  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  they  ought  to  have  meas- 
ured the  consequences.  The  imperative  question  thenceforward  was 
whether  the  loyal  or  the  disloyal  —  the  victorious  Union  or  the  de- 
feated Confederacy  —  should  prescribe  the  terms  of  Reconstruction. 

The  Northern  States  were  thus  compelled  to  consider  whether  they 
would  unconditionally  surrender  to  the  Rebel  element  of  the  South 
or  devise  some  other  plan  of  reconstruction.  At  that  point,  in  the 
order  of  time  and  in  the  order  of  events,  and  not  until  then,;the  just 
resolve  was  made  by  the  Republicans  to  reconstruct  the  South  on 
the  basis  of  Loyalty,  regardless  of  race  or  color.  By  refusing  to 
co-operate  with  the  Republicans  in  the  work  of  rehabilitating  their 
States,  the  Southern  rebels  forced  the  Northern  States  to  make  im- 
partial suffrage  the  corner-stone  of  the  restored  Union.  The  South 
had  its  choice,  and  it  deliberately  and  after  fair  warning  decided  to 
reject  the  magnanimous  offer  of  the  North  and  to  insist  upon  an 
advantage  in  representation  against  which  a  common  sense  of  justice 
revolted.  The  North,  foiled  in  its  original  design  of  reconstruction 
by  the  perverse  course  of  the  South,  was  compelled,  under  the  provi- 
dence of  the  Ruler  of  Nations,  to  deal  honestly  and  justly  with  the 
colored  people.  It  was  the  insane  folly  of  the  South,  in  drawing 


THE  TENURE-OF-OFFICE  BILL.  267 

the  sword  against  the  life  of  the  Nation,  that  led  irresistibly  to  the 
abolition  of  slavery.  In  a  minor  degree  the  folly  was  now  repeated, 
in  resisting  the  mode  of  Reconstruction  first  tendered,  and  thus  for- 
cing Congress  to  confer  civil  rights  and  suffrage  upon  the  emancipated 
slave.  A  higher  than  human  power  controlled  these  great  events. 
The  wrath  of  man  was  made  to  praise  the  righteous  works  of  God. 
Whatever  were  the  deficiencies  of  the  negro  race  in  education,  for 
the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  citizenship,  they  had  exhibited  the 
one  vital  qualification  of  an  instinctive  loyalty,  and  as  far  as  lay  in 
their  power  a  steadfast  helpfulness  to  the  cause  of  the  National  Union. 


As  the  strife  between  the  Executive  and  Legislative  Departments 
had  grown  in  intensity,  President  Johnson  naturally  sought  to 
increase  his  own  prestige  by  the  use  of  the  patronage  of  the  Gov- 
ernment. To  this  end  he  had  already  removed  certain  conspicuous 
Republicans  from  office,  especially  those  who  had  been  recommended 
and  were  now  sustained  by  senators  and  representatives  prominently 
engaged  in  frustrating  his  plan  of  reconstruction.  The  wonder  in 
the  political  world  was,  that  the  President  had  not  resorted  to  this 
form  of  attack  more  promptly,  and  pursued  it  more  determinedly. 
His  delay  could  be  explained  only  by  what  was  termed  his  talent  for 
procrastination,  and  to  a  certain  indecision  which  was  fatal  to  him 
as  an  executive  officer.  But  as  the  breach  between  himself  and 
Congress  widened,  as  the  bitterness  between  the  partisans  of  the 
Executive  and  of  the  Legislative  Departments  grew  more  intense,  the 
belief  became  general,  that,  as  soon  as  Congress  should  adjourn,  there 
would  be  a  removal  of  all  Federal  officers  throughout  the  Union  who 
were  not  faithful  to  the  principles,  and  did  not  respond  to  the  exac- 
tions, of  the  Administration.  Outside  of  his  Cabinet,  the  President 
was  surrounded  by  the  class  of  men  who  had  great  faith  in  the  per- 
suasive power  of  patronage,  and  the  pressure  upon  him  to  resort  to 
its  use  was  constant  and  growing.  Inside  of  his  Cabinet ,  there  were 
men  of  the  same  belief,  but  their  power  was  somewhat  neutralized 
by  the  attitude  of  Mr.  Seward,  whose  faith  always  lay  in  the  strength 
of  ideas,  and  not  in  the  use  of  force,  or  in  the  temptation  of  personal 
advantage.  Mr.  Seward's  influence  had  constantly  tended  to  hold 
the  President  back  from  a  ruthless  removal  of  the  whole  body  of 
officers  who  declined  to  take  part  against  the  policy  of  Congress. 


268  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

According  to  long-accepted  construction  of  the  Constitution,  the 
President's  power  of  removal  was  absolute  and  unqualified.  Ap- 
pointment to  office  could  not  be  made  unless  the  consent  of  the 
Senate  was  given  in  each  and  every  case  —  but  the  consent  of  the 
Senate  had  not  been  held  as  requisite  to  the  removal  of  an  officer. 
The  Constitution  was  silent  upon  the  subject,  and  the  existence  or 
non-existence  of  power  in  the  Senate  to  prevent  a  removal  from  office 
had  been  matter  of  dispute  from  the  foundation  of  the  Government. 
Those  who  contended  for  the  right  of  the  President  to  remove  with- 
out consulting  the  Senate  were  fortified  by  the  early  legislation  of 
Congress  and  the  early  practice  of  the  Executive.  The  First  Con- 
gress of  the  Union  had  provided  for  officers  whose  appointment 
depended  upon  confirmation  by  the  Senate  as  required  by  the  Con- 
stitution, but  whose  removal  was  left  in  explicit  terms  to  the  President 
alone.  The  decision  to  that  effect  was  made  after  debate  in  which 
Madison  had  strenuously  contended  for  that  construction,  and  his 
high  authority  gave  to  the  conclusion  great  weight  with  subsequent 
administrations  of  the  Government.  But  there  was  undoubtedly 
a  divided  opinion  in  the  Congress  that  conceded  it,  and  that  division 
has  continued  among  Constitutional  lawyers  and  statesmen  to  this 
day.  In  1835  Mr.  Webster,  "  after  considering  the  question  again  and 
again,"  made  this  declaration  in  the  Senate :  "  I  am  willing  to  say 
that,  in  my  deliberate  judgment,  the  original  decision  was  wrong. 
I  cannot  but  think  that  those  who  denied  the  power  in  1789  had 
the  best  of  the  argument.  It  appears  to  me,  after  thorough  and 
repeated  and  conscientious  examination,  that  an  erroneous  interpreta- 
tion was  given  to  the  Constitution  in  this  respect  by  the  decision 
of  the  First  Congress.  ...  I  have  the  clearest  conviction  that  the 
Convention  which  formed  the  Constitution  looked  to  no  other 
mode  of  displacing  an  officer  than  by  impeachment  or  the  regular 
appointment  of  another  to  the  same  place.  ...  I  believe  it  to  be 
within  the  just  power  of  Congress  to  reverse  the  decision  of  1789, 
and  I  mean  to  hold  myself  at  liberty  to  act  hereafter  on  that  ques- 
tion as  the  safety  of  the  Government  and  of  the  Constitution  may 
require." 

Mr.  Webster's  words  would  have  exerted  a  far  wider  influence 
upon  public  opinion  if  his  argument  had  not  been  made  under  the 
pressure  of  a  partisan  excitement  caused  by  General  Jackson's  re- 
moval of  officers  who  were  not  in  sympathy  with  the  measures  of  his 
Administration.  He  was  effectively  though  not  directly  answered 


THE   TENURE-OF-OFFICE  BILL.  269 

by  the  venerable  ex-President  Madison.  In  October,  1834,  in  a  let- 
ter to  Edward  Coles,  Mr.  Madison  said,  "  The  claim  of  the  Senate 
on  Constitutional  ground  to  a  share  in  removal  as  well  as  appoint- 
ment of  officers  is  in  direct  opposition  to  the  uniform  practice 
of  the  Government  from  its  commencement.  It  is  clear  that  the 
innovation  would  not  only  vary  essentially  the  existing  balance  of 
power,  but  expose  the  Executive  occasionally  to  a  total  inaction, 
and  at  all  times  to  delays  fatal  to  the  due  execution  of  the  laws." 
A  year  later,  and  only  a  few  months  before  his  death,  Mr.  Madi- 
son in  a  letter  to  Charles  Francis  Adams  thus  repeated  his  views : 
"  The  claims  for  the  Senate  of  a  share  in  the  removal  from  office, 
and  for  the  Legislature  an  authority  to  regulate  its  tenure,  have  had 
powerful  advocates.  I  must  still  think,  however,  that  the  text 
of  the  Constitution  is  best  interpreted  by  reference  to  the  tripartite 
theory  of  Government,  to  which  practice  has  conformed,  and  which 
so  long  and  uniform  a  practice  would  seem  to  have  established.  The 
face  of  the  Constitution  and  the  journalized  proceedings  of  the  Con- 
vention strongly  indicate  a  partiality  to  that  theory  then  at  the 
zenith  of  favor  among  the  most  distinguished  commentators  on  the 
organization  of  political  power."  Chief  Justice  Marshall  fortified  the 
position  of  Mr.  Madison,  by  declaring  that  the  action  of  the  First 
Congress  on  this  question  "  has  ever  been  considered  as  a  full  expres- 
sion of  the  sense  of  the  Legislature  on  this  important  part  of  the 
American  Constitution." 

Of  the  thirty-nine  members  of  the  Convention  of  1787  who 
signed  the  Constitution,  thirteen,  including  Mr.  Madison,  were  mem- 
bers of  the  first  Congress ;  Alexander  Hamilton  was  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  under  the  new  Government ;  and  above  all,  General  Wash- 
ington, who  had  presided  over  the  deliberations  of  the  Convention, 
had  attentively  listened  to  every  discussion,  and  had  carefully  studied 
every  provision,  was  President  of  the  United  States.  More  than  one- 
third  of  the  members  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  were  there- 
fore engaged  in  the  Executive  and  Legislative  Departments  of  the 
new  Government  in  applying  the  organic  instrument  which  they  had 
taken  so  large  a  part  in  creating.  The  cotemporaneous  interpreta- 
tion was  by  these  facts  rendered  valuable  if  not  authoritative.  Co- 
temporaneous interpretations  of  organic  law  are  not  always,  it  is 
true,  to  be  regarded  as  conclusive,  but  they  are  entitled  to  the  most 
careful  and  respectful  consideration,  and  cannot  be  reversed  with 
safety  unless  the  argument  therefor  is  unanswerable  and  the  motive 


270  .        TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

which  suggests  the  argument  altogether  patriotic  and  unselfish.  The 
familiar  rule  laid  down  by  Lord  Coke  is  as  pertinent  to-day  as  when 
first  announced:  "Great  regard  ought,  in  construing  a  law,  to  be 
paid  to  the  construction  which  the  sages,  who  lived  about  the  time  or 
soon  after  it  was  made,  put  upon  it,  because  they  were  best  able  to 
judge  of  the  intention  of  the  makers  at  the  time  when  the  law  was 
made.  Contemporania  expositio  est  fortissimo,  in  legem" 

Against  the  early  decision  of  the  founders  of  the  Government, 
against  the  ancient  and  safe  rule  of  interpretation  prescribed  by  Lord 
Coke,  against  the  repeatedly  expressed  judgment  of  ex-President 
Madison,  against  the  equally  emphatic  judgment  of  Chief  Justice 
Marshall,  and  above  all,  against  the  unbroken  practice  of  the  Gov- 
ernment for  seventy-eight  years,  the  Republican  leaders  now  deter- 
mined to  deprive  the  President  of  the  power  of  removing  Federal 
officers.  Many  were  induced  to  join  in  the  movement  under  the 
belief  that  it  was  important  to  test  the  true  meaning  of  the  Constitu- 
tion in  the  premises,  and  that  this  could  be  most  effectively  done  by 
directly  restraining  by  law  the  power  which  had  been  so  long  con- 
ceded to  the  Executive  Department.  To  that  end  Mr.  Williams  of 
Oregon  on  the  first  Monday  of  December,  1866,  introduced  a  bill 
uto  regulate  the  tenure  of  civil  offices."  It  was  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Retrenchment,  and  reported  back  with  amendment 
by  Mr.  Edmunds  of  Vermont,  who  thenceforward  assumed  parlia- 
mentary control  of  the  subject. 

The  bill  came  up  for  discussion  on  the  10th  day  of  January. 
Its  first  section  provided  that  every  person  except  members  of  the 
Cabinet,  "holding  any  civil  office  to  which  he  has  been  appointed 
by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  every  person 
who  shall  hereafter  be  appointed  to  such  office,  shall  be  entitled 
to  hold  such  office  until  a  successor  shall  have  been,  in  like  manner, 
appointed  and  duly  qualified,  except  as  herein  otherwise  provided." 
The  second  section  declared  that  "when  any  officer  shall,  during 
the  recess  of  the  Senate,  be  shown  by  evidence  satisfactory  to  the 
President,  to  be  guilty  of  misconduct  in  office,  or  crime,  or  for  any 
reason  shall  become  legally  disqualified  or  incapable  of  performing 
the  duties  of  his  office ;  in  such  case,  and  in  no  other,  the  Presi- 
dent may  suspend  such  officer  and  designate  some  suitable  person 
to  perform  temporarily  the  duties  of  such  office,  until  the  next  meet- 
ing of  the  Senate,  and  until  the  case  shall  be  acted  upon  by  the 
Senate :  and  in  such  case  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  President,  with- 


THE  TENURE-OF-OFFICE  BILL.  271 

in  twenty  days  after  the  first  day  of  such  meeting  of  the  Senate,  to 
report  to  the  Senate  such  suspension,  with  the  evidence  and  reasons 
for  the  same,  and  if  the  Senate  shall  concur  in  such  suspension,  and 
advise  and  consent  to  the  removal  of  such  officer^  they  shall  so  certify 
to  the  President,  who  shall  thereupon  remove  such  officer,  and  by  and 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  appoint  another  person  to 
such  office ;  but  if  the  Senate  shall  refuse  to  concur  in  such  sus- 
pension, such  officer  so  suspended  shall  forthwith  resume  the  func- 
tions of  his  office,  and  the  powers  of  the  person  so  performing  its 
duties  in  his  stead  shall  cease."  <  « 

Mr.  Howe  wished  to  know  why  members  of  the  Cabinet  should 
be  excepted.  "  Each  one  of  those  offices,"  he  said,  "  is  created  by 
statute,  and  created  not  for  the  personal  benefit  of  the  Executive, 
but  created  for  the  benefit  of  the  public  service,  just  as  much  as  a 
deputy  postmaster  or  an  Indian  agent."  Mr.  Edmunds,  in  reply  to 
Mr.  Howe,  said  that  the  Committee,  "  after  a  great  deal  of  consulta- 
tion and  reflection,"  had  resolved  to  except  members  of  the  Cabinet 
from  the  scope  of  the  proposed  Act.  He  gave  reasons  therefor, 
which  from  the  foundation  of  the  Government  have  been  considered 
conclusive — reasons  founded  on  the  personal  and  confidential  rela- 
tions necessarily  existing  between  the  President  and  his  Constitu- 
tional advisers.  The  reasons  did  not  satisfy  Mr.  Howe.  He  thought 
"  the  tenure  of  Cabinet  officers  should  be  under  the  control  of  law 
and  independent  of  any  undue  exercise  of  Executive  influence."  He 
therefore  moved  to  amend  the  bill  so  as  to  put  the  members  of  the 
Cabinet  on  the  same  basis  as  other  civil  officers  —  not  removable  ~by 
the  President,  except  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate.  But 
the  Senate  was  decidedly  averse  to  so  radical  a  change  in  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Government,  and  Mr.  Howe  secured  the  votes  of  only 
eight  senators  to  join  him  in  support  of  his  amendment. 

Mr.  Edmunds  moved,  subsequently,  to  amend  the  bill  by  the  ad- 
dition of  several  clauses,  one  declaring  it  a  high  misdemeanor  for 
"  any  person,  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  to  accept  any 
appointment  or  employment  in  office,  or  to  hold  or  attempt  to  hold, 
or  exercise,  any  office  or  employment."  The  signing,  sealing,  counter- 
sealing,  or  issuing  of  any  commission,  or  letter  of  authority,  contrary 
to  the  provisions  of  the  Act,  was  made  punishable  by  a  fine  not  ex- 
ceeding ten  thousand  dollars,  or  by  imprisonment  not  exceeding  five 
years,  or  by  both.  Various  other  provisions  of  great  b^ verity  were 
incorporated,  and  were  adopted  after  brief  debate. 


272  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

When  the  bill  reached  the  House,  every  provision  of  it  was 
readily  agreed  to  except  that  which  excluded  Cabinet  officers  from 
its  operation.  An  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Williams  of  Pennsyl- 
vania to  strike  that  out  was  defeated  —  ayes  76,  noes  78.  Later  in 
the  day,  just  as  the  bill  was  passing  to  its  engrossment,  Mr.  Far- 
quhar  of  Indiana,  having  voted  with  the  majority,  moved  to  recon- 
sider the  vote  by  which  the  amendment  was  rejected.  The  vote  was 
taken  the  ensuing  day,  and  by  the  zealous  work  of  the  intervening 
night,  the  motion  to  reconsider  prevailed  —  ayes  75,  noes  69 — and 
the  amendment  was  at  once  adopted.  The  bill  was  then  passed  by  a 
party  vote  —  ayes  111,  noes  38.  When  it  was  returned  to  the  Senate, 
that  body  refused,  by  a  decisive  vote,  to  concur  in  the  amendment 
which  placed  members  of  the  Cabinet  on  the  same  basis  with  other 
officers  respecting  the  President's  power  of  removal.  Upon  a  confer- 
ence between  the  two  branches  on  the  disagreement,  a  substitute  was 
adopted,  declaring  that  the  members  of  the  Cabinet  "  shall  hold  their 
offices,  respectively,  for  and  during  the  term  of  the  President  by 
whom  they  may  have  been  appointed,  and  for  one  month  thereafter, 
subject  to  removal  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Sen- 
ate." Both  Houses  agreed  to  the  bill  in  this  form.  Mr.  Farquhar's 
change  of  mind  and  his  motion  to  reconsider  led  to  the  incorporation 
in  the  bill  of  the  provision  whose  alleged  violation  by  President 
Johnson  was  the  direct  cause  of  his  impeachment  by  the  House  of 
Representatives  a  year  later. 

The  final  action  on  the  measure  by  the  Senate  was  on  the  20th 
of  February,  so  that  the  President  had  the  opportunity  to  endanger 
its  passage  by  postponing  the  veto,  and  it  was  generally  anticipated 
that  he  would  do  so.  He  communicated  it,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Re- 
construction Bill,  on  the  2d  of  March.  In  reviewing  the  measure 
Mr.  Johnson  said :  "  In  effect  it  provides  that  the  President  shall  not 
remove  from  their  places  any  of  the  civil  officers  whose  terms  of  ser- 
vice are  not  limited  by  law,  without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States.  The  bill  conflicts,  in  my  judgment, 
with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The  question,  as  Con- 
gress is  well  aware,  is  by  no  means  a  new  one.  That  the  power  of 
removal  is  constitutionally  vested  in  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  is  a  principle  which  has  been  not  more  distinctly  declared  by 
judicial  authority  and  judicial  commentators,  than  it  has  been  uni- 
formly practiced  upon  by  the  Legislative  and  Executive  Departments 
of  the  Government.  .  .  .  The  question  has  often  been  raised  in 


THE  TENU1IE-OF-OFFICE  BILL.  273 

subsequent  times  of  high  excitement,  and  the  practice  of  the  Gov- 
ernment has  nevertheless  conformed  in  all  cases  to  the  decision  thus 
made.  Having  at  an  early  period  accepted  the  Constitution,  in 
regard  to  the  Executive  office,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  was  inter- 
preted with  the  concurrence  of  its  founders,  I  have  found  no  suffi- 
cient grounds  in  the  arguments  now  opposed  to  that  construction,  or 
in  any  assumed  necessity  of  the  times,  for  changing  those  opinions. 
.  .  .  For  these  reasons,  I  return  the  bill  to  the  Senate,  in  which 
House  it  originated,  for  the  further  consideration  of  Congress  which 
the  Constitution  prescribes.  Experience,  I  think,  has  shown  that  it 
is  the  easiest,  as  it  is  also  the  most  attractive,  of  studies  to  frame 
constitutions  for  the  self-government  of  free  states  and  nations ;  but 
I  think  experience  has  equally  shown  that  it  is  the  most  difficult  of 
all  political  labors  to  preserve  and  maintain  such  free  constitutions 
of  self-government  when  once  happily  established." 

The  veto  message  was  a  very  able  document.  In  all  official 
papers  of  importance  the  President  appeared  at  his  best.  He  had 
the  inestimable  advantage  of  Mr.  Seward's  calm  temper  and  of  his 
attractive  and  forcible  statement  of  the  proper  argument.  Few 
among  the  public  men  of  the  United  States  have  rivaled  Mr. 
Seward  in  the  dignity,  felicity,  and  vigor  which  he  imparted  to  an 
official  paper.  No  one  ever  surpassed  him.  In  the  veto  message 
under  consideration  his  hand  was  evident  in  every  paragraph ;  and 
if  it  had  been  President  Johnson's  good  fortune  to  go  down  to  pos- 
terity on  this  single  issue  with  Congress,  he  might  confidently  have 
anticipated  the  verdict  of  history  in  his  favor.  The  delicate,  almost 
humorous  sarcasm  in  the  closing  words  above  quoted  from  the  mes- 
sage, afford  a  good  specimen  of  Mr.  Seward's  facility  of  stating  the 
gravest  of  organic  propositions  in  a  form  attractive  to  the  general 
reader.  He  wrote  as  one  who  felt  that  in  this  particular  issue  with 
Congress,  whatever  might  be  the  adverse  votes  of  the  Senate  and 
House,  time  would  be  sure  to  vindicate  the  position  of  the  President. 
But  the  message  did  not  arrest  the  action,  indeed  scarcely  the  atten- 
tion, of  Congress,  and  the  bill  was  promptly,  even  hurriedly,  passed 
over  the  veto,  —  in  the  Senate  by  35  ayes  to  11  noes ;  in  the  House 
by  133  ayes  to  37  noes. 

The  bill  was  not  passed,  however,  without  considerable  misgiving 
on  the  part  of  many  members  of  both  Houses  who  voted  for  it.  It 
was  an  extreme  proposition,  —  a  new  departure  from  the  long- 
established  usage  of  the  Federal  Government,  and  for  that  reason, 

VOL.  II.  18 


274  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

if  for  no  other,  personally  degrading  to  the  incumbent  of  the  Presi- 
dential office.  It  could  only  have  grown  out  of  abnormal  excite- 
ment created  by  the  dissensions  between  the  two  great  Departments 
of  the  Government.  The  bitterness  engendered  resembled  that  which 
always  distinguishes  a  family  quarrel.  The  measure  was  resorted  to 
as  one  of  self-defense  against  the  alleged  aggressions  and  the  unre- 
strained power  of  the  Executive  Department.  But  the  history  of 
its  operation,  and  of  its  subsequent  modification,  which  practically 
amounted  to  its  repeal,  is  one  to  which  the  Republican  party  can- 
not recur  with  any  sense  of  pride  or  satisfaction.  As  matter  of 
fact,  a  Republican  Congress,  largely  composed  of  the  same  members 
who  had  enacted  the  law,  indirectly  confessed  two  years  later  that 
it  could  not  be  maintained.  Regarded  only  in  the  light  of  expedi- 
ency at  the  time,  it  could  readily  be  demonstrated  (as  was  after- 
wards admitted  by  candid  men  among  those  who  supported  it)  to 
be  a  blunder,  —  a  blunder  all  the  more  censurable  because  the  Act 
was  not  needed  to  uphold  the  Reconstruction  policy  of  Congress, 
in  aid  of  which  it  was  devised.  That  policy  relied  for  its  vindication 
upon  the  judgment  and  conscience  of  the  loyal  people,  and  it  was  an 
impeachment  of  their  good  faith  to  say  that  either  could  be  affected 
by  the  removal  of  one  man,  or  of  many  men,  from  official  position 
under  the  Federal  Government.  The  Reconstruction  policy  stood 
upon  a  strong  and  enduring  principle,  —  as  strong  and  enduring  as 
the  question  of  human  right,  —  and  was  sustained  with  vigor  and 
enthusiasm  by  the  great  party  which  was  responsible  for  the  war 
measures  that  had  saved  the  Union.  The  same  sentiment  did  not 
attach  to  the  Tenure-of-office  Law,  which  indeed  was  only  the  cause  of 
subsequent  humiliation  to  all  who  had  taken  part  in  its  enactment.1 


It  was  part  of  the  fixed  policy  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  administration 
to  increase  the  number  of  distinctively  free  States  from  that  section 
of  the  public  domain  which  had  never  been  in  any  way  contaminated 
by  the  institution  of  slavery.  To  this  end  he  was  anxious  to 
encourage  the  settlement  of  the  Territories  already  organized  west 
of  the  Missouri  River.  To  provide  for  the  still  more  rapid  creation  of 
North-western  States,  two  additional  Territories,  Idaho  and  Montana, 

1  The  full  text  of  the  Act  to  regulate  the  tenure  of  certain  civil  offices,  is  given  in 
Appendix  B. 


NEBRASKA   AND   COLORADO.  275 

were  organized  from  the  area  which  had  been  included  in  Dakota. 
Mr.  Lincoln's  evident  motive  was  to  place  beyond  the  calculation, 
or  even  the  hope,  of  the  disloyal  States  the  possibility  of  ever  again 
having  sufficient  political  power  to  compete  in  the  Senate  for  the 
mastery  of  the  Republic.  He  was  persuaded  that  the  sectional  con- 
test would  be  fatally  pursued  so  long  as  the  chimerical  idea  of  equal- 
ity  in  the  Senate  should  stimulate  Southern  ambition.  He  knew, 
moreover,  that  the  war  could  not  close  with  victory  for  the  Union 
without  the  proposal  of  certain  changes  in  the  Constitution,  and  to 
this  end  it  was  desirable  that  the  loyal  States  should  as  early  and  as 
nearly  as  possible  constitute  three-fourths  of  the  entire  Union.  With 
this  motive,  he  had  towards  the  close  of  his  first  term,  somewhat 
prematurely  it  was  believed  by  many,  stimulated  the  desire  of  the 
settlers  of  Nevada  for  a  State  government.  He  had  faith  not  only 
in  the  justice,  but  in  the  popularity,  of  this  policy ;  for  he  took  pains 
to  issue  the  proclamation  declaring  Nevada  a  State  in  the  Union 
only  a  week  preceding  the  Presidential  election  of  1864,  when  the 
existence  of  his  administration  was  at  stake,  and  when  every  public 
measure  was  scanned  with  special  scrutiny. 

Nebraska  had  been  organized  as  a  Territory  in  the  original  Doug- 
las  bill  repealing  the  Missouri  Compromise,  in  1854 ;  and  Colorado 
was  made  a  Territory  the  week  preceding  Mr.  Lincoln's  first  inaugu- 
ration. After  Nevada,  these  Territories  offered  the  earliest  promise 
of  becoming  States.  They  were  both  parts  of  the  old  Louisiana 
purchase  from  France,  and  had  in  popular  estimation  and  in* the 
classification  of  the  earlier  geographers  been  included  within  the 
borders  of  the  Great  American  Desert.  But  settlers  had  swarmed 
upon  the  plains  of  Nebraska,  and  the  waving  fields  of  grain  and  the 
innumerable  herds  of  cattle  browsing  on  her  rich  pasture-land  soon 
dispelled  that  misconception,  and  gave  promise  of  the  prosperous 
development  which  the  State  has  since  attained.  Earlier  than  the 
farmer  or  the  grazier  could  reach  its  soil,  Colorado  was  settled  by  an 
intelligent  mining  population,  whose  industry  has  extracted  from  her 
mountains  more  than  two  hundred  millions  of  the  precious  metals, 
contributed  in  the  last  quarter  of  a  century  to  the  wealth  of  the  world,, 
Encouraged  by  the  policy  of  the  Administration,  and  especially  by  the 
precedent  of  Nevada,  both  Territories  sought  an  enabling  Act  from 
Congress  in  the  winter  of  1862-63.  Neither  succeeded  at  the  time ; 
but  in  the  next  Congress  a  bill  "  to  enable  the  people  of  Colorado  to 
form  a  constitution  and  State  government,  and  for  the  admission  of 


276  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

said  State  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original 
States,"  passed  both  Houses,  and  was  approved  by  Mr.  Lincoln  on 
the  21st  of  March,  1864.  A  month  later  (April  19,  1864)  a  similar 
bill  for  Nebraska  was  signed  by  the  President. 

It  appeared  that  the  citizens  of  each  Territory  who  had  been 
forward  in  asking  an  enabling  Act  from  Congress  were  somewhat  in 
advance  of  popular  sentiment,  for  when  the  question  of  forming  a 
State  government  was  submitted  to  direct  vote  in  Colorado  it  was 
rejected,  and  the  same  action  was  taken  in  Nebraska.  But  soon  after- 
ward (in  the  year  1865)  the  movement  for  a  State  government  gained 
strength  in  both  Territories.  Through  duly  organized  conventions, 
and  the  formation  and  adoption  of  State  constitutions,,  the  people  in- 
dicated a  willingness,  if  not  an  active  desire,  to  be  admitted  to  the 
Union.  In  Colorado  5,895  votes  were  cast  when  the  constitution 
was  submitted,  and  the  majority  in  favor  of  the  new  State  was  but 
155.  William  Gilpin  was  elected  governor,  and  John  Evans  and 
Jerome  B.  Chaffee  were  chosen  senators  of  the  United  States.  But 
when  the  new  senators  reached  Washington  (early  in  the  year  1866) 
they  found  that  the  policy  of  the  National  Administration  on  the 
subject  of  new  States  had  changed,  and  that  instead  of  a  friend  in 
the  White  House,  as  Mr.  Lincoln  had  steadily  proved,  they  had  a 
determined  opponent  in  the  person  of  Mr.  Johnson.  Congress  with 
reasonable  promptness  passed  the  bill  in  both  Houses  for  the  admis- 
sion of  Colorado,  though  it  was  opposed  by  the  more  radical  class 
of  Republicans  because  negroes  were  excluded  from  the  right  of  suf- 
frage. It  is  a  striking  illustration  of  the  rapid  change  of  public 
sentiment,  that  in  the  winter  and  early  spring  of  1866  a  bill  con- 
taining that  provision  could  pass  a  Congress  in  which  the  Republi- 
cans had  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  membership  of  each  branch, 
whereas  in  less  than  a  year  negro  suffrage  was  required  as  the  con- 
dition of  re-admission  of  the  Southern  States. 

The  Colorado  bill  passed  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  nineteen  to 
thirteen,  and  the  House  by  eighty-one  to  fifty-seven.  It  reached  the 
President  on  the  fifth  day  of  May  and  was  promptly  vetoed.  Mr. 
Johnson  did  not  believe  that  the  establishment  of  a  State  government 
was  necessary  to  the  welfare  of  the  people  of  Colorado ;  "  nor  was  it 
satisfactorily  established  that  a  majority  of  the  citizens  of  Colorado 
desire,  or  are  prepared  for,  an  exchange  of  the  Territorial  for  a  State 
government."  He  thought  that  Colorado,  instead  of  increasing,  had 
declined  in  population.  "  At  an  election  for  a  Territorial  Legislature 


NEBRASKA  AND  COLORADO.  277 

in  1861,  10,580  votes  were  cast ;  at  an  election  in  1864  only  6,192 
votes  were  cast ;  while  at  the  election  of  1865  only  5,905  votes  have 
been  cast."  He  said,  "  I  regret  this  apparent  decline  of  population 
in  Colorado,  but  it  is  manifest  that  it  is  due  to  emigration  which  is 
going  out  from  that  Territory  into  other  regions  of  the  United  States, 
which  either  are  in  fact,  or  are  believed  to  be  by  the  citizens  of  Colo- 
rado, richer  in  mineral  wealth  and  agricultural  resources."  The 
President  commented  upon  the  injustice  of  creating  from  so  small 
a  population  a  State  with  senatorial  strength  equal  to  that  of  the 
largest  State  in  the  Union.  He  thought  Colorado  did  not  have  a 
population  of  more  than  thirty  thousand  persons,  "  whereas  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty-seven  thousand  are  required  in  other  States  for  a 
single  representative  in  Congress."  The  President  did  not  neglect 
his  one  constant  theme  —  the  unrepresented  condition  of  the  South- 
ern States.  He  insisted  that  "  so  long  as  eleven  of  the  old  States 
remain  unrepresented  in  Congress,  no  new  State  should  be  prema- 
turely and  unnecessarily  admitted  to  a  participation  in  the  political 
power  which  the  Federal  Government  wields."  The  strong  minority 
which  had  opposed  the  Colorado  bill  gave  no  hope  of  overriding  the 
President's  veto,  which  was  simply  laid  on  the  table  and  ordered  to 
be  printed. 

The  bill  for  the  admission  of  Nebraska  came  later  in  the  session, 
not  being  introduced  for  consideration  until  the  23d  of  July.  It 
passed  very  promptly  by  a  vote  of  twenty-four  to  eighteen  in  the 
Senate,  and  by  sixty-two  to  fifty-two  in  the  House.  As  in  the  case  of 
Colorado  the '  constitution  excluded  the  negro  from  the  right  of  suf- 
frage, and  for  that  reason  a  very  considerable  proportion  of  the  Re- 
publicans of  each  branch  voted  against  the  bill.  The  vote  was  so 
close  in  the  House  that  but  for  a  frank  and  persuasive  statement 
made  by  Mr.  Rice  of  Maine,  from  the  Committee  on  Territories,  it 
would  have  been  defeated.  He  pictured  the  many  evils  that  would 
come  to  the  people  of  Nebraska,  now  more  than  sixty  thousand  in 
number,  if  they  could  not  do  for  themselves,  as  a  State,  many  things 
which  the  National  Government  would  not  do  for  them  as  a  Terri- 
tory. Under  the  influence  of  his  speech  a  majority  of  ten  was  found 
for  the  bill,  but  Congress  adjourned  the  day  after  it  was  finally 
passed  by  both  branches,  and  the  President  quietly  "  pocketed "  the 
bill;  and  thus  the  earnest  and  prolonged  effort  to  create  two  new 
States  came  to  naught  for  the  time. 

Nothing  daunted  by  the  President's  veto  of  the  bill  admitting 


278  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Colorado,  and  his  pocketing  the  bill  admitting  Nebraska,  Mr.  Wade 
promptly  introduced  both  bills  anew,  at  the  beginning  of  the  second 
session  of  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress.  The  case  of  Nebraska  was, 
in  popular  judgment,  stronger  than  the  case  of  Colorado.  The  pop- 
ulation was  larger,  and  being  devoted  to  agriculture,  was  naturally 
regarded  as  more  stable  than  that  of  Colorado,  which  was  based 
principally  upon  the  somewhat  fortuitous  discovery  of  mines  of  the 
precious  metals.  But  there  was  an  admitted  political  embarrass- 
ment in  regard  to  both  Territories,  the  principal  debate  on  which 
occurred  when  the  bill  admitting  Nebraska  was  under  consideration. 
Congress  was,  at  the  time,  engaged  in  passing  the  Reconstruction 
Act  for  the  States  lately  in  rebellion,  and  had  made  it  imperative 
that  negroes  should  be  endowed  with  suffrage  by  those  States. 
While  insisting  on  this  condition  for  the  Southern  States  it  was  ob- 
viously impossible  for  Congress  to  admit  two  Northern  States  with 
constitutions  prohibiting  suffrage  to  the  negro.  In  the  months  of  the 
Congressional  vacation  public  opinion  in  the  North  had  made  great 
strides  on  this  question. 

A  minority  of  Republicans  were  intent  on  sending  the  bill  back 
and  having  the  question  of  negro  suffrage  submitted  for  popular  de- 
cision, but  in  the  opinion  of  the  majority  of  the  party  this  was  a 
needless  postponement  of  a  pressing  question,  and  all  propositions 
looking  to  such  postponement  were  rejected.  A  final  compromise 
of  views  was  reached,  by  inserting  in  the  Act  of  admission  an  addi- 
tional section  declaring  "  that  this  Act  shall  not  take  effect  except 
upon  the  fundamental  condition  that  within  the  State  of  Nebraska 
there  shall  be  no  denial  of  the  elective  franchise  or  of  any  other 
right  to  any  person,  by  reason  of  race  or  color,  excepting  Indians 
not  taxed;  and  upon  the  further  fundamental  condition  that  the 
Legislature  of  said  State,  by  a  solemn  public  act,  shall  declare  the 
assent  of  said  State  to  the  said  fundamental  condition  and  shall 
transmit  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  an  authentic  copy  of 
said  Act."  When  notified  of  this  solemn  public  act  by  the  Legisla- 
ture, it  was  made  the  duty  of  the  President  to  announce  the  fact  by 
proclamation,  and  thereupon  the  admission  of  the  State  to  the 
Union,  without  further  proceedings  of  Congress,  was  to  be  considered 
complete.  The  objection  to  this  compromise  by  those  who  opposed  it 
and  by  others  who  reluctantly  supported  it,  was  that  it  did  not  have 
the  force  of  Organic  Law ;  that  the  proposed  act  of  the  Legislature 
would  not  be  rendered  any  more  binding  by  reason  of  being  called  a 


NEBRASKA  AND  COLORADO.  279 

solemn  act,  and  that  it  might  be  repealed  by  any  subsequent  Legisla- 
ture. Much  argument  was  expended  upon  this  point,  but  the  general 
judgment  was  that  an  act  of  the  Legislature,  made  in  pursuance  of 
such  an  understanding  with  Congress,  was  in  the  nature  of  a  compact 
which,  without  discussing  the  question  of  power,  would  certainly  be 
regarded  as  binding  upon  the  State.  With  this  understanding,  Con- 
gress passed  a  bill  admitting  the  State,  but  the  vote  in  both  branches 
was  divided  on  the  line  of  party. 

This  action  was  accomplished  late  in  January  (1867),  and  on 
the  29th  of  that  month  the  President  vetoed  the  bill.  He  objected 
especially  to  the  clause  just  referred  to,  because  it  was  an  addition 
to  the  enabling  Act  which  Congress  had  no  moral  right  to  make, 
and  because  it  required  of  Nebraska  a  condition  not  theretofore 
required  of  States,  —  contradicting  flatly  the  declaration  of  the  first 
section  of  the  bill,  in  which  the  State  was  declared  to  be  "  admitted 
into  the  Union  upon  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States  in  all 
respects  whatever."  He  argued  that  the  imposition  of  the  condition 
prescribed  in  the  bill,  and  its  acceptance  by  the  Legislature,  was 
practically  a  change  in  the  organic  law  of  the  State  without  con- 
sulting the  people,  which  he  regarded  as  an  innovation  upon  the  safe 
practice  of  the  Government.  But  his  arguments  fell  upon  unwilling 
ears,  and  the  bill  was  passed  over  the  veto  by  a  vote  of  thirty  to 
nine  in  the  Senate,  and  in  the  House  by  one  hundred  and  twenty  to 
forty-three. 

Colorado  did  not  fare  so  well.  The  bill  was  passed  by  both 
branches  of  Congress,  though  not  with  so  full  a  vote  nor  with  so 
much  confidence  in  the  propriety  and  necessity  of  the  measure.  Pre- 
cisely the  same  condition  in  regard  to  suffrage  was  inserted  as  in  the 
case  of  the  Nebraska  bill.  It  met  with  a  prompt  veto,  more  elabo- 
rately argued  and  presented  with  more  confidence  by  the  President 
than  in  the  case  of  Nebraska.  He  said,  "  I  cannot  perceive  any  rea- 
son for  the  admissson  of  Colorado  that  would  not  apply  with  equal 
force  to  nearly  every  other  Territory  now  organized,  and  I  submit 
whether,  if  this  bill  becomes  a  law,  it  will  be  possible  to  resist  the 
logical  conclusion  that  such  Territories  as  Dakota,  Montana,  and 
Idaho  must  be  received  as  States  whenever  they  present  themselves, 
without  regard  to  the  number  of  inhabitants  they  may  respectively 
contain."  He  dwelt  forcibly  upon  the  necessity  of  requiring  popula- 
tion enough  to  secure  one  representative.  "  The  plain  facts  of  our 
history,"  said  he,  "  will  attest  that  the  leading  States  admitted  since 


280  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

1845,  namely,  Iowa,  Wisconsin,  California,  Minnesota,  and  Kansas 
(including  Texas,  which  was  admitted  that  year),  have  all  come  in 
with  an  ample  population  for  one  representative,  and  some  of  them 
with  nearly,  if  not  quite,  enough  for  two." 

There  were  really  no  facts  before  Congress  tending  to  prove  the 
existence  of  those  great  resources  which  have  since  advanced  Colo- 
rado so  rapidly  in  population  and  prosperity.  Little  was  known  of 
the  Territory.  It  was  several  hundred  miles  beyond  the  Western 
border  of  continuous  settlement,  and  the  men  who  came  from  it  were 
regarded  as  adventurous  pioneers  on  the  very  outposts  of  civiliza- 
tion. Under  this  condition  of  affairs  it  was  not  strange  that  the 
Senate  failed  to  pass  the  bill  for  the  admission  of  the  State  over  the 
veto  of  the  President.  Edmunds,  Fessenden,  Foster,  Grimes,  Harris, 
Morgan,  and  some  other  Republicans,  less  prominent,  voted  in  the 
negative.  The  result  was  twenty-nine  in  favor  of  j>assing  it  over  the 
veto,  and  nineteen  against.  Defeated  in  the  Senate  the  bill  did  not 
go  to  the  House,  and  the  admission  of  Colorado  was  by  this  action 
postponed  for  several  years. 

The  President  gave  specious  reasons  for  his  vetoes,  especially  in 
the  case  of  Colorado,  but  they  did  not  conceal  the  fact  that  his  posi- 
tion was  radically  different  from  that  which  Mr.  Lincoln  had  held,  — 
radically  different  from  the  position  which  he  would  himself  have 
assumed  if  he  had  maintained  in  good  faith  the  principles  he  pro- 
fessed when  he  secured  the  suffrages  of  the  Republican  party  for  the 
Vice-Presidency.  Having  allied  himself  with  the  South  and  compro- 
mised his  patriotic  record  by  espousing  the  cause  he  had  so  hotly 
opposed,  he  naturally  adopted  all  its  principles  and  its  worst  preju- 
dices. For  nearly  half  a  century  the  leading  exponents  of  Southern 
sentiment  had  been  envious  of  the  growth  of  the  free  North-West, 
and  so  far  as  lay  in  their  power  they  had  obstructed  it — being 
unwilling  for  a  long  period  to  admit  one  of  its  giant  Territories  to 
the  Union  until  its  power  could  be  politically  offset  by  one  of  far 
less  population  and  wealth  in  the  South.  Mr.  Johnson  in  his  new 
associations  at  once  adopted  this  jealous  and  ungenerous  policy  — 
which  had  indeed  lost  something  of  its  significance  by  the  abolition 
of  slavery,  but  was  still  stimulated  by  partisan  considerations  and 
was  invariably  hostile  to  the  admission  of  a  Republican  State.  The 
most  bitter  prejudices  could  not  blind  Mr.  Johnson  or  the  Southern 
leaders  to  the  inevitable  growth  of  free  commonwealths  in  the  North- 
West,  but  it  seemed  to  be  an  object  with  both  to  keep  them  from 


PARDONING  POWER  OF  THE  PRESIDENT.  281 

participation  in  the  government  of  the  Union  as  long  as  possible,  and 
to  accomplish  this  end  by  every  expedient  that  could  be  adopted. 


An  Act  in  relation  to  the  President's  power  to  grant  pardon  and 
amnesty,  passed  at  this  session,  was  more  important  in  its  spirit  than 
in  its  results.  By  the  thirteenth  section  of  the  Confiscation  Act  of 
July  17,  1862,  the  President  was  authorized,  at  any  time,  by  procla- 
mation, "to  extend  to  persons  who  may  have  participated  in  the 
existing  rebellion  in  any  State  or  part  thereof,  pardon  and  amnesty." 
Under  a  suspension  of  the  rules,  the  House  of  Representatives,  by  a 
vote  of  one  hundred  and  twelve  to  twenty-nine,  repealed  this  sec- 
tion on  the  first  day  of  the  session  (December  3,  1866).  There  was 
anxiety  on  the  part  of  many,  under  the  lead  of  Mr.  Chandler  of 
Michigan,  to  repeal  it  as  promptly  in  the  Senate,  but  it  was  referred 
to  the  Judiciary  Committee  and  passed  after  discussion.  Mr.  Chan- 
dler said,  "It  is  a  notorious  fact,  as  notorious  as  the  records  of  a 
court,  that  pardons  have  been  for  sale  around  this  town,  for  sale  by 
women  —  by  more  than  one  woman.  The  records  of  your  court  in 
the  District  of  Columbia  show  this.  Any  senator  who  desires  this 
disgraceful  business  to  go  on,  of  course  desires  that  this  clause  shall 
remain." 

The  repeal  of  the  clause,  however,  would  not  take  from  the 
President  his  constitutional  power  of  pardoning,  but  in  the  judgment 
of  Mr.  Trumbull,  who  had  charge  of  the  bill  in  the  Senate,  it  took 
from  him  the  power  to  pardon  by  proclamation  and  confined  him  to 
his  right  of  issuing  individual  pardons.  The  difference  between  par- 
don and  amnesty  was  defined  by  Mr.  Trumbull.  Pardon  is  an  act  of 
mercy  extended  to  an  individual.  It  must  be  by  deed.  It  must  be 
pleaded.  According  to  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  it  is  essential  to  its 
validity  that  it  be  delivered  to  the  person  pardoned.  But  an  amnesty 
is  a  general  pardon  by  proclamation.  Mr.  Trumbull  thought  the 
repeal  would  be  a  "valuable  expression  of  opinion  on  the  part  of 
Congress  that  general  pardons  and  restoration  of  property  will  not 
be  continued,  and  if  the  President  continues  to  pardon  rebels  and 
restore  their  property  by  individual  acts  under  the  Constitution,  let 
him  do  so  without  having  the  sanction  of  Congress  for  his  act." 

Mr.  Reverdy  Johnson  took  issue  with  Mr.  Trumbull.  He  main- 
tained that  the  President's  power  to  grant  pardons,  as  conferred  by 


282  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

the  Constitution,  had  not  been  affected  by  the  provision  of  law 
whose  repeal  was  now  urged.  He  declared  that  the  power  of  the 
President  "  to  grant  reprieves  and  pardons  for  offenses  against  the 
United  States  "  was  as  broad,  as  general,  as  unrestricted  as  language 
could  make  it.  He  could  find  no  logical  ground  for  the  distinction 
made  by  Mr.  Trumbull  between  individual  pardons  and  general  am- 
nesties by  proclamation  —  in  illustration  of  which  he  said  President 
Washington  had  by  proclamation  pardoned  the  offenders  engaged  in 
the  Whiskey  Insurrection.  The  enactment  of  the  provision  had  not, 
in  Mr.  Johnson's  opinion,  enlarged  the  President's  pardoning  power, 
and  its  repeal  would  not  restrict  it. 

It  was  thought  that  a  majority  of  the  Senate  concurred  in  Mr. 
Johnson's  interpretation  of  the  Constitution,  but  they  passed  the  bill 
as  a  rebuke  to  the  scandalous  sale  of  pardons  which  Mr.  Chandler 
had  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Senate.  This  vile  practice  had 
no  doubt  been  pursued  to  some  extent,  but  onty  by  a  class  of  "  mid- 
dle men  "  who  had  neither  honor  nor  sensibility.  They  had  in  some 
form  the  opportunity  to  secure  the  interposition  of  men  who  could 
reach  the  ear  of  the  President  or  the  Attorney-General.  It  is  hardly 
necessary  to  add  that  neither  of  those  high  officials  was  in  the  remot- 
est degree  reflected  upon  even  by  thqir  bitterest,  opponents.  How- 
ever wrong-headed  Mr.  Johnson  and  Mr.  Stanbery  might  have  been 
considered  on  certain  political  issues,  the  personal  integrity  of  both 
was  unblemished.  It  was  believed  that  the  nefarious  practice  was 
stopped  by  Mr.  Chandler's  action  in  the  Senate.  Exposure  made 
public  men  careful  to  examine  each  application  for  pardon  before 
they  would  consent  to  recommend  it  to  the  President. 

The  President  neither  approved  the  bill  nor  objected  to  it,  but 
allowed  it  to  become  a  law  by  the  expiration  of  the  Constitutional 
limit  of  ten  days.  He  obviously  took  the  same  view  that  had.  been 
advanced  by  Mr.  Reverdy  Johnson,  and  did  not  take  the  trouble  to 
sign  it,  much  less  to  veto  it.  It  was  brutum  fulmen,  and  the  Presi- 
dent used  his  Constitutional  power  to  pardon  by  proclamation  just 
as  freely  after  its  enactment  as  before. 

NOTE.  —  "  Pocketing  a  bill "  is  the  phrase  commonly  used  to  describe  the  President's 
course  when  he  permits  a  bill  which  reaches  him  within  the  last  ten  days  of  the  session, 
to  die  without  act  on  his  part.  It  is  frequently  termed  the  "  pocket  veto." 


CHAPTEK    XII. 

MEETING  OF  FORTIETH  CONGRESS,  MARCH  4TH,  1867.  —  CONSPICUOUS  CHANGES  IN  SENATE 
AND  HOUSE.  —  CAMERON,  CONKLING,  MORTON,  IN  SENATE.  —  BUTLER,  PETERS,  BECK, 
IN  HOUSE.  —  MR.  JAMES  BROOKS  OBJECTS  TO  THE  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  HOUSE.  — 
SEVENTEEN  STATES  ABSENT.  —  THE  CLERK  DECLINES  TO  RECEIVE  HIS  MOTION. — THIRD 
ELECTION  OF  MR.  COLFAX  AS  SPEAKER.  —  SUPPLEMENTARY  RECONSTRUCTION  ACT. 

—  THE  PRESIDENT'S  PROMPT  VETO.  — PASSED  OVER  HIS  OBJECTIONS.  —  CONGRESS 
ADJOURNS  TO  JULY  3D.  —  SECOND  SUPPLEMENTARY  ACT  OF  RECONSTRUCTION.  —  AN- 
OTHER VETO.  —  OMINOUS  WORDS  FROM  THE  PRESIDENT.  —  REPUBLICANS  DISQUIETED. 

—  CONGRESS   ADJOURNS  TO  NOVEMBER.  —  THE  SOUTH  PLACED  UNDER  MILITARY 
GOVERNMENT.  —  PRACTICAL  RECONSTRUCTION.  —  CONVENTIONS  IN  THE  SOUTHERN 
STATES.  —  CONSTITUTIONS  SUBMITTED  TO  THE  PEOPLE.  —  SECOND  SESSION  FORTIETH 
CONGRESS.  —  AGGRESSIVE  MESSAGE  FROM  THE  PRESIDENT.  —  SOUTHERN  STATES  RE- 
ADMITTED TO  REPRESENTATION.  —  ANOTHER  VETO  FROM  THE  PRESIDENT.  —  RECON- 
STRUCTION CONTEST  PRACTICALLY  ENDED.  —  REPRESENTATIVES  AND  SENATORS  FROM 
THE  SOUTH.  —  MISTAKES  OF  FORMER  SLAVE-HOLDERS.  —  UNFORTUNATE  BLUNDERS.  — 
PECULIAR  MENTAL  QUALITIES  OF  PRESIDENT  JOHNSON.  —  THE  VETO  POWER. — ITS 
INFREQUENT  USE  BY  EARLIER  PRESIDENTS.  —  EXAMPLE  OF  JACKSON.  —  FOLLOWED 
BY  HIS  SUCCESSORS.  — DIFFERENCE  BETWEEN  DEMOCRATIC  AND  WHIG  PRESIDENTS.— 
MR.  TYLER  AND  MR.  JOHNSON. — RATIFICATION  OF  THE  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT. 

—  PROCLAIMED   BY  MR.  SEWARD.  —  IMPORTANCE  OF  ITS  PROVISIONS.  —  SINGULAR 
HOSTILITY  OF  THE  DEMOCRATS. —A  NEW  CHARTER  OF  FREEDOM.  —  SWEEPS  AWAY 
OPPRESSION  AND  EVERY  DENIAL  OF  JUSTICE.  —  CREDIT  OF  IT  CONCEDED  TO  THE 
REPUBLICANS. 

r  I  1HE  Fortieth  Congress  met  at  the  very  moment  the  Thirty-ninth 
JL  closed  —  on  the  fourth  day  of  March,  1867.  The  valedictory 
words  of  the  presiding  officers  in  both  branches  were  followed  imme- 
diately by  the  calling  to  order  of  the  succeeding  bodies.  The  con- 
test between  the  President  and  Congress  had  grown  so  violent,  the 
mutual  distrust  had  become  so  complete,  that  the  latter  was  unwill- 
ing to  have  its  power  suspended  for  the  customary  vacation  of  nine 
months  between  the  4th  of  March  and  the  first  Monday  of  the  ensu- 
ing December ;  and  therefore  at  the  preceding  session  a  law  had 
been  passed  directing  that  each  Congress  should  be  organized  imme- 
diately after  the  existence  of  its  predecessor  had  closed.  The 
Republican  leaders  felt  that  without  the  supervising  and  counter- 
acting power  of  Congress,  full  force  and  effect  might  not  be  given 

283 


284  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

to  the  Reconstruction  laws  by  the  President;  that  they  might  possibly 
be  neutralized  by  hostile  action  from  the  office  of  the  Attorney- 
General,  and  that  for  this  reason  it  would  be  well,  nay,  it  was  imper- 
atively demanded,  that  the  legislative  power  should  be  kept  ready  to 
interpose  with  fresh  enactments,  the  very  moment  those  already  in 
force  should  be  dulled  by  adverse  construction,  or  haltingly  admin- 

FORTIETH  CONGRESS. 

REPUBLICANS  IN  ROMAN ;   DEMOCRATS  IN  ITALIC ;  ADMINISTRATION  REPUBLICANS  IN  SMALL 

CAPITALS. 


Benjamin  F.  "Wade  of  Ohio,  President. 

John  W.  Forney  of  Pennsylvania,  Secretary.1 

MAINE.  —  Lot  M.  Morrill,  William  Pitt  Fessenden. 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  —  Aaron  H.  Cragin,  James  W.  Patterson.  » 

VERMONT.  —  George  F.  Edmunds,  Justin  S.  Morrill. 

MASSACHUSETTS.  —  Charles  Sumner,  Henry  Wilson. 

RHODE  ISLAND.  —  William  Sprague,  Henry  B.  Anthony.  - 

CONNECTICUT.  —  JAMES  DIXON,  Orris  S.  Ferry. 

NEW  YORK.  — Edwin  D.  Morgan,  Roscoe  Conkling. 

NEW  JERSEY.  —  Frederick  T.  Frelinghuysen,  Alexander  G.  Cattell. 

PENNSYLVANIA.  —  Charles  R.  Buckalew,  Simon  Cameron. 

DELAWARE.  —  George  Read  Riddle,2  Willard  Saulsbury. 

MARYLAND.  —  Reverdy  Johnson*  Philip  Francis  Thomas.4 

OHIO.  —  Benjamin  F.  Wade,  John  Sherman. 

KENTUCKY.  —  Garrett  Davis,  James  Guthrief 

TENNESSEE.  —  David  T.  Patterson,  Joseph  S.  Fowler. 

INDIANA.—  Thomas  A.  Hendricks,  Oliver  P.  Morton. 

ILLINOIS.  —  Richard  Yates,  Lyman  Trumbull. 

MISSOURI.  —  John  B.  Henderson,  Charles  D.  Drake. 

ARKANSAS.  —  Alexander  McDonald,  Benjamin  F.  Rice.6 

MICHIGAN.  —  Zachariah  Chandler,  Jacob  M.  Howard. 

FLORIDA.  —  Adonijah  S.  Welch,  Thomas  W.  Osborn.6 

NORTH  CAROLINA.  —  Joseph  C.  Abbott,  John  Pool.6 

SOUTH  CAROLINA.  —  Thomas  J.  Robertson,  Frederick  A.  Sawyer.6 

ALABAMA.  —  Willard  Warner,  George  E.  Spencer.6 

LOUISIANA.  —  John  S.  Harris,  William  P.  Kellogg.6 

IOWA.  —  James  W.  Grimes,  James  Harlan. 

WISCONSIN.  —  JAMES  R.  DOOLITTLE,  Timothy  O.  Howe. 

CALIFORNIA.  —  John  Conness,  Cornelius  Cole. 

MINNESOTA.  —  Alexander  Ramsey,  DANIEL  S.  NORTON. 

OREGON.  —  George  H.  Williams,  Henry  W.  Corbett. 

KANSAS.  —  Edmund  G.  Ross,  Samuel  C.  Pomeroy. 

WEST  VIRGINIA.  —  Peter  G.  Van  Winkle,  Waitman  T.  Willey. 

NEVADA.  —  William  M.  Stewart,  James  W.  Nye. 

NEBRASKA.  —  Thomas  W.  Tipton,  John  M.  Thayer. 

1  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  George  C.  Gorham.         3  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  William  PinckneyWhyte. 

2  Died.    Succeeded  by  James  A.  Bayard.  4  Denied  admission.     George  Vickers  admitted. 
6  Resigned.    .Succeeded  by  Thomas  C.  McCreery.    6  Admitted  under  Acts  June  22-25,  1868. 


MEMBERS  OF  FORTIETH  CONGRESS.  285 

istered   by  Executive  agents   not  in  sympathy  with  the  policy  of 
Congress. 

The  membership  of  the  Fortieth  Congress  was  changed  in  some 
important  respects  in  both  branches.  Simon  Cameron,  at  sixty-eight 
years  of  age,  returned  from  Pennsylvania  as  the  successor  of  Edgar 
Cowan  in  the  Senate.  It  was  the  third  time  he  had  entered  that 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

Schuyler  Colfax  of  Indiana,  Speaker. 

Edward  McPherson  of  Pennsylvania,  Clerk. 

MAINE. —  John  Lynch,  Sidney  Perham,  James  G.  Elaine,  John  A.  Peters,  Frederick 
A.  Pike. 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE. —  Jacob  H.  Ela,  Aaron  F.  Stevens,  Jacob  Benton. 

VERMONT.  —  Frederick  E.  Woodbridge,  Luke  P.  Poland,  Worthington  C.  Smith. 

MASSACHUSETTS.  —  Thomas  D.  Eliot,  Oakes  Ames,  Ginery  Twichell,  Samuel  Hooper, 
Benjamin  F.  Butler,  Nathaniel  P.  Banks,  George  S.  Boutwell,  John  D.  Baldwin, 
William  B.  Washburn,  Henry  L.  Dawes. 

RHODE  ISLAND.  —  Thomas  A.  Jenckes,  Nathan  F.  Dixon. 

CONNECTICUT.  —  Richard  D.  Hubbard,  Julius  Hotchkiss,  Henry  H.  Starkweather,  William 
H.  Barnum. 

NEW  YORK.  —  Stephen  Taber,  Demas  Barnes,  William  E.  Robinson,  John  Fox,  John 
Morrissey,  Thomas  E.  Stewart,  John  W.  Chanler,  James  Brooks,  Fernando  Wood, 
William  H.  Robertson,  Charles  H.  Van  Wyck,  John  H.  Ketcham,  Thomas  Cornell, 
John  V.  L.  Pruyn,  John  A.  Griswold,  Orange  Ferriss,  Calvin  T.  Hulburd,  James 
M.  Marvin,  William  C.  Fields,  Addison  H.  Laflin,  Alexander  H.  Bailey,  John  C. 
Churchill,  Dennis  McCarthy,  Theodore  M.  Pomeroy,  William  H.  Kelsey,  William 
S.  Lincoln,  Hamilton  Ward,  Lewis  Setye,  Burt  Van  Horn,  James  M.  Humphrey, 
Henry  Van  Aernam. 

NEW  JERSEY.  — William  Moore,  Charles  Haight,  Charles  Sitgreaves,  John  Hill,  George  A. 
Halsey. 

PENNSYLVANIA.  —  Samuel  J.  Randall,  Charles  O'Neill,  Leonard  Myers,  William  D. 
Kelley,  Caleb  N.  Taylor,  Benjamin  M.  Boyer,  John  M.  Broomall,  J.  Lawrence  Getz, 
Thaddeus  Stevens,1  Henry  L.  Cake,  Daniel  M.  Van  Auken,  Charles  Denison,2  Ulysses 
Mercur,  George  F.  Miller,  Adam  J.  Glossbrenner,  William  H.  Koontz,  Daniel  J. 
Morrell,  Stephen  F.Wilson,  Glenni  W.  Scofield,  Darwin  A.  Finney,3  John  Covode, 
James  K.  Moorhead,  Thomas  Williams,  George  V.  Lawrence. 

DELAWARE.  —  John  A.  Nicholson. 

MARYLAND.  —  Hiram  McCullough,  Stevenson  Archer,  CHARLES  E.  PHELPS,  Francis 
Thomas,  Frederick  Stone. 

OHIO.  —  Benjamin  Eggleston,  Rutherford  B.  Hayes,4  Robert  C.  Schenck,  William  Law- 
rence, William  Mungen,  Reader  W.  Clarke,  Samuel  Shellabarger,  Cornelius  S. 
Hamilton,5  Ralph  P.  Buckland,  James  M.  Ashley,  John  T.  Wilson,  Philadelph  Van 
Trump,  George  W.  Morgan*  Martin  Welker,  Tobias  A.  Plants,  John  A.  Bingham, 
Ephraim  R.  Eckley,  Rufus  P.  Spalding,  James  A.  Garfield. 

KENTUCKY.  —  Lawrence  S.  Trimble,  (vacancy),  Jacob  S.  Golladay,  J.  Proctor  Knott,  Asa 
P.  Grover,  Thomas  L.  Jones,  James  B.  Beck,  George  M.  Adams,  Samuel  McKee. 

TENNESSEE.  —  Roderick  R.  Butler,  Horace  Maynard,  William  B.  Stokes,  James  Mullins, 
John  Trimble,  Samuel  M.  Arnell,  Isaac  R.  Hawkins,  David  A.  Nunn. 

1  Died.    Succeeded  by  Oliver  J.  Dickey.  *  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  Samuel  F.  Gary. 

2  Died.    Succeeded  by  George  W.  Woodward.  6  Died.    Succeeded  by  John  Beatty. 

3  Died.    Succeeded  by  S.  Newton  Pettis.  6  Unseated.    Succeeded  by  Columbus  Delano. 


286  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

body,  and  now,  as  it  proved,  for  a  longer  period  than  ever  before.  — 
Roscoe  Conkling,  who  had  been  steadily  growing  in  strength  with 
the  Republican  party  of  New  York,  was  transferred  from  the  House 
and  took  the  seat  of  Ira  Harris.  —  Justin  S.  Morrill  of  Vermont,  after 
twelve  years  of  useful  and  honorable  service  in  the  House,  was  now 
promoted  to  the  Senate  for  a  still  longer  and  equally  honorable  and 

INDIANA.—  William  E.  Niblack,  Michael  C.  Kerr,  Morton  C.  Hunter,  William  S.  Holman, 

George  W.  Julian,  John  Coburn,  Henry  D.  Washburn,  Godlove  S.  Orth,  Schuyler 

Colfax,  William  Williams,  John  P.  C.  Shanks. 
ILLINOIS.  —  Norman  B.  Judd,  John  F.  Farnsworth,  Elihu  B.  Washburne,  Abner  C. 

Harding,  Ebon  C.  Ingersoll,  Burton  C.  Cook,  Henry  P.  H.  Bromwell,  Shelby  M. 

Cullom,  Lewis  W.  Ross,  Albert  G.  Burr,  Samuel  S.  Marshall,  Jehu  Baker,  Green  B. 

Raum,  John  A.  Logan. 
MISSOURI.  —  William  A.  Pile,  Carman  A.  Newcomb,  THOMAS  E.  NOELL,*  Joseph  J. 

Gravely,  Joseph  W.  McClurg,2  Robert  T.  Van  Horn,  Benjamin  F.  Loan,  John  F. 

Benjamin,  George  W.  Anderson. 

ARKANSAS.  —  Logan  H.  Roots,  James  Hinds,3  Thomas  Boles.4 
MICHIGAN.  —  Fernando  C.  Beaman,  Charles  Upson,  Austin  Blair,  Thomas  W.  Ferry, 

Rowland  E.  Trowbridge,  John  F.  Driggs. 
FLORIDA.  —  Charles  M.  Hamilton.4 
NORTH  CAROLINA.  —  John  R.  French,  David  Heaton,  Oliver  H.  Dockery,   John  T. 

Deweese,  Israel  G.  Lash,  Nathaniel  Boyden,  Alexander  H.  Jones.4 
SOUTH  CAROLINA.  —  Benjamin  F.  Whittemore,  C.  C.  Bowen,  Simeon  Corley,  James  H. 

Goss.4 
GEORGIA.  — J.  W.  Clift,  Nelson  Tift,  W.  P.  Edwards,  Samuel  F.  Gove,  C.  H.  Prince, 

(vacancy),  P.  M.  B.  Young* 
ALABAMA.  —  Francis  W.  Kellogg,  Charles  W.  Buckley,  Benjamin  W.  Norris,  Charles  W. 

Pierce,  John  B.  Callis,  Thomas  Haughey.4 
LOUISIANA.  —  J.  Hale  Sypher,  James   Mann,  Joseph   P.   Newsham,  Michael  Vidal, 

W.  Jasper  Blackburn.4 
IOWA.  —  James  F.  "Wilson,  Hiram  Price,  William  B.  Allison,  William  Loughridge, 

Grenville  M.  Dodge,  Asahel  W.  Hubbard. 
WISCONSIN.  —  Halbert  E.  Paine,  Benjamin  F.  Hopkins,  Amasa  Cobb,  Charles  A.  Eldridge, 

Philetus  Sawyer,  Cadwalader  C.  Washburn. 

CALIFORNIA.  —  Samuel  B.  Axtell,  William  Higby,  James  A.  Johnson. 
MINNESOTA.  —  William  Windom,  Ignatius  Donnelly. 
OREGON.  —  Rufus  Mallory. 
KANSAS.  —  Sidney  Clarke. 

WEST  VIRGINIA.  —  Chester  D.  Hubbard,  Bethuel  M.  Kitchen,  Daniel  Polsley. 
NEVADA.  —  Delos  R.  Ashley. 
NEBRASKA.  —  John  Taffe. 

TERRITORIAL  DELEGATES. 

ARIZONA.  —  Coles  Bashford. 
COLORADO.  —  George  M.  Chilcott. 
DAKOTA.  —  Walter  A.  Burleigh. 
IDAHO.  —  E.  D.  Holbrook. 
MONTANA.  —  James  M.  Cavanaugh. 
NEW  MEXICO.  —  Charles  P.  Clever. 
UTAH.—  William  H.  Hooper. 
WASHINGTON.  —  Alvan  Flanders. 

1  Died.    Succeeded  by  James  R.  McCormick.  3  Died.    Succeeded  by  James  T.  Elliott. 

2  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  John  H.  Stover.  *  Admitted  under  Acts  June  22-25,  1868. 


MEMBERS  OF  FORTIETH  CONGRESS.  28T 

useful  service  in  that  body.  —  Oliver  P.  Morton,  bearing  his  great 
reputation  as  the  War  Governor  of  Indiana,  now  took  the  seat  of 
Henry  S.  Lane,  whom,  six  years  before,  he  had  succeeded  in  the 
gubernatorial  chair  of  his  State.  —  James  W.  Patterson  of  New  Hamp- 
shire had  grown  rapidly  in  favor  by  four  years'  service  in  the  House 
and  now  entered  the  Senate  as  the  successor  of  Daniel  Clark.  —  Orris 
S.  Ferry,  who  but  for  physical  disability  would  have  acquired  wider 
fame,  succeeded  Lafayette  S.  Foster  as  senator  from  Connecticut. — 
James  Harlan  returned  from  Iowa  after  a  somewhat  extraordinary 
experience  with  the  President  during  his  two  years'  absence.  —  Charles 
D.  Drake,  fresh  from  bitter  political  controversies,  entered  from 
Missouri  as  the  successor  of  B.  Gratz  Brown.  —  Cornelius  Cole,  who 
had  already  served  in  the  House,  came  from  California.  —  Henry  W. 
Corbett,  a  successful  merchant,  came  from  Oregon.  The  Senate  on 
the  whole  had  received  valuable  accessions.  Some  of  the  men  who 
entered  that  day  became  prominent  and  influential  in  the  public 
councils  for  many  years. 

The  House  also  received  some  noteworthy  additions  among  the 
new  members.  Two  marked  men  from  the  North- West,  who  had 
served  as  representatives  in  opposing  parties,  before  the  Rebellion, 
now  returned  as  members  of  the  same  political  organization,  having 
in  the  four  intervening  years  acquired  great  distinction  in  the  war 
for  the  Union  —  John  A.  Logan  of  Illinois,  and  Cadwalader  C.  Wash- 
burn  of  Wisconsin.  —  Grenville  M.  Dodge,  who  had  attained  high 
rank  in  the  volunteer  service,  entered  from  Iowa.  —  Norman  B.  Judd, 
who  had  gained  much  influence  by  his  long  membership  of  the  State 
Senate  of  Illinois  between  1844  and  1860,  and  by  his  service  as  min- 
ister to  Berlin  under  Mr.  Lincoln,  now  came  from  one  of  the  Chicago 
districts. 

The  New- York  delegation  was  strengthened  by  the  advent  of 
some  new  men. — Dennis  McCarthy,  an  enterprising  and  success- 
ful merchant,  with  wide  knowledge  of  public  affairs,  entered  from 
the  Syracuse  district.  He  proved  a  most  intelligent  and  useful 
member  of  the  House,  as  he  already  had  of  the  Legislature  of  New 
York.  His  ability,  his  industry,  and  his  broadly  liberal  views  have 
given  him  a  high  standing  among  the  people  of  his  State. — William 
H.  Robertson  entered  at  the  same  time  from  the  Westchester  district. 
He  was  a  member  of  the  House  for  only  a  single  term,  but  he  left 
a  clear  imprint  of  the  high  character  which  has  since  been  put  to 
severe  tests  and  was  never  found  wanting.  Able  and  frank,  con- 


288  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

scientious  and  careful  in  the  discharge  of  every  trust,  Mr.  Robertson 
has  established  a  reputation  without  spot  or  blemish.  —  Orange  Ferriss, 
since  of  honorable  repute  as  one  of  the  Auditors  in  the  Treasury 
Department,  John  C.  Churchill,  who  had  already  attained  a  good 
standing  at  the  Bar,  and  Addison  H,  Laflin,  afterwards  appointed 
to  an  important  customs  office  in  the  city  of  New  York,  all  entered 
at  this  session. 

John  Coburn,  who  had  made  a  good  record  in  the  war,  came 
from  the  State  of  Indiana.  Firm  and  tenacious  in  his  opinions,  even 
to  the  point  of  obstinacy,  he  was  for  years  an  active  and  useful  rep- 
resentative of  the  people.  He  could  not  be  deflected  from  what  he 
regarded  as  the  line  of  duty  and  he  soon  acquired  the  respect  of  both 
sides  of  the  House.  —  Morton  C.  Hunter,  who  had  done  good  service 
in  the  Army  of  the  Tennessee,  as  Colonel  of  an  Indiana  regiment, 
and  afterwards  commanded  a  brigade  in  Sherman's  Atlanta  cam- 
paign, now  entered  from  the  Bloomington  district.  —  Austin  Blair, 
who  had  won  great  praise  as  Governor  of  Michigan  during  the 
war,  now  entered  as  representative  from  the  Jackson  district.  He 
exhibited  talent  in.  debate,  was  distinguished  for  industry  in  the  work 
of  the  House  and  for  inflexible  integrity  in  all  his  duties.  He  was 
not  a  party  man  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word,  but  was  inclined 
rather  to  independence  of  thought  and  action.  This  habit  separated 
him  from  many  friends  who  had  wished  to  promote  his  political  ambi- 
tion, and  estranged  him  for  a  time  from  the  Republican  party.  But 
it  never  lost  him  the  confidence  of  his  neighbors  and  friends,  and  did 
not  impair  the  good  reputation  he  had  earned  in  his  public  career. 
—  George  A.  Halsey,  a  successful  manufacturer  and  a  most  intelli- 
gent, worthy  man,  entered  from  the  Newark  district  of  New  Jersey, 
bringing  to  the  House  a  thorough  and  valuable  knowledge  of  the 
trade  relations  of  the  country,  both  domestic  and  foreign.  —  The  New- 
Hampshire  delegation,  not  present  at  the  organization  of  the  House, 
had  been  entirely  changed  by  the  late  election.  Aaron  F.  Stevens, 
a  lawyer  of  high  standing,  Jacob  H.  Ela,  afterwards  for  many  years 
an  Auditor  of  the  Treasury  Department,  and  Jacob  Benton,  well 
known  in  the  politics  of  his  State,  were  the  new  members.  —  Worth- 
ington  C.  Smith,  an  experienced  man  of  affairs,  entered  from  Ver- 
mont as  the  successor  of  Justin  S.  Morrill.  —  Henry  L.  Cake,  an 
enthusiastic  representative  of  the  Pennsylvania  Germans  and  of  the 
anthracite-coal  miners,  came  from  the  Schuylkill  district.  —  Green 
B.  Raum,  afterwards  for  a  considerable  period  Commissioner  of 


MEMBERS  OF  FORTIETH  CONGRESS.  289 

Internal  Revenue,  entered  from  Illinois.  —  William  A.  Pile  and  Car- 
man A.  Newcomb,  two  active  and  earnest  young  Republicans,  came 
as  representatives  of  the  city  of  St.  Louis. 

Benjamin  F.  Butler  now  took  his  seat  in  Congress  for  the  first 
time.  He  was  sent  from  a  Massachusetts  district  of  which  he  was 
not  a  resident,  thus  breaking  a  long  established  and  approved  cus- 
tom. Though  his  military  career  had  been  the  subject  of  adverse 
and  bitter  criticism,  it  had  been  marked  by  certain  features  which 
pleased  the  people,  and  he  came  out  of  the  war  with  an  extraordi- 
nary popularity  in  the  loyal  States.  He  engaged  at  once  in  political 
strife.  During  the  canvass  against  the  President's  policy  in  1866 
he  went  through  the  country,  it  may  with  truth  be  said,  at  the 
head  of  a  triumphal  procession.  He  was  received  everywhere  with 
a  remarkable  display  of  enthusiasm,  and  was  fortunate  in  com- 
mending himself  to  the  good  will  of  the  most  radical  section  of  the 
Republican  party.  He  naturally  affiliated  with  that  side  because  it 
never  was  General  Butler's  habit  to  be  moderate  in  the  advocacy  of 
any  public  policy.  When  he  was  a  Democrat  he  sustained  the  ex- 
treme Southern  wing  of  the  party  with  all  his  force  and  zeal ;  and 
when  the  course  of  his  political  associates  pointed  to  a  disruption  of 
the  Government  he  turned  upon  them  with  savage  hostility,  declared 
without  hesitation  for  the  support  of  the  Union,  offered  his  services 
as  a  soldier,  and  was  constantly  in  the  vanguard  of  those  who  de- 
manded the  most  aggressive  and  most  destructive  measures  in  the 
prosecution  of  the  war.  He  entered  Congress,  therefore,  with  appar- 
ent advantages  and  in  the  full  maturity  of  his  powers,  at  forty-nine 
years  of  age. 

—  General  Butler  had  long  been  regarded  as  a  powerful  antagonist 
at  the  bar  and  he  fully  maintained  his  reputation  in  the  parliamentary 
conflicts  in  which  he  became  at  once  involved.  He  exhibited  an  ex- 
traordinary capacity  for  agitation,  possessing  in  a  high  degree  what 
John  Randolph  described  as  the  "  talent  for  turbulence."  His  mind 
was  never  at  rest.  While  not  appearing  to  seek  controversies,  he 
possessed  a  singular  power  of  throwing  the  House  into  turmoil  and 
disputation.  The  stormier  the  scene,  the  greater  his  apparent  enjoy- 
ment and  the  more  striking  the  display  of  his  peculiar  ability.  His 
readiness  of  repartee,  his  great  resources  of  information,  his  familiarity 
with  all  the  expedients  and  subtleties  of  logical  and  illogical  dis- 
cussion, contributed  to  make  him  not  only  prominent  but  formidable 
in  the  House  for  many  years.  He  was  distinguished  by  habits  of 

VOL.  II.  19 


290  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

industry,  had  the  patience  and  the  power  required  for  thorough 
investigation,  and  seemed  to  possess  a  keen  insight  into  the  personal 
defects,  the  motives,  and  the  weaknesses  of  his  rivals.  He  was  auda- 
cious in  assault,  apparently  reckless  in  his  modes  of  defense,  and  in 
all  respects  a  debater  of  strong  and  notable  characteristics.  Usually 
merciless  in  his  treatment  of  an  aggressive  adversary,  he  not  infre- 
quently displayed  generous  and  even  magnanimous  traits.  He  had 
the  faculty  of  attaching  to  himself,  almost  as  a  personal  following, 
those  members  of  the  House  who  never  came  in  conflict  with  him, 
while  he  regarded  his  intellectual  peers  of  both  political  parties  as 
natural  foes  whom  he  was  destined  at  some  time  to  meet  in  combat, 
and  for  whose  overthrow  he  seemed  to  be  in  constant  preparation. 

Another  marked  character  came  from  New  England,  —  John  A. 
Peters  of  Maine,  —  a  graduate  of  Yale,  a  man  of  ability,  of  humor,  of 
learning  in  the  law.  He  had  enjoyed  the  advantage  of  a  successful 
career  at  the  bar  and  was  by  long  training  and  indeed  by  instinct 
devoted  to  his  profession.  In  his  six  years'  service  in  the  House  he 
acquired  among  his  fellow-members  a  personal  popularity  and  per- 
sonal influence  rarely  surpassed  in  Congressional  experience.  He 
made  no  long  speeches  and  was  not  frequently  on  the  floor,  but  when 
he  rose  he  spoke  forcibly,  aptly,  attractively,  and  with  that  unerring 
sense  of  justice  which  always  carried  him  to  the  right  side  of  a 
question,  with  unmistakable  influence  upon  the  best  judgment  of 
the  House.  Since  his  retirement  from  Congress  his  career  on  the 
Supreme  Bench  of  Maine,  and  more  recently  as  its  Chief  Justice, 
has  given  roundness  and  completeness  to  a  character  whose  integ- 
rity, generosity,  and  candor  have  attracted  not  only  the  confidence 
and  respect  of  an  entire  State,  but  the  devoted  attachment  of  a 
continually  enlarging  circle  of  friends. 

James  B.  Beck  took  his  seat  for  the  first  time  as  representative 
from  the  Ashland  District  of  Kentucky.  He  was  born  in  Scotland 
in  1822,  and  though  he  came  to  the  United  States  while  yet  a  lad, 
he  has  retained  in  strength  and  freshness  all  the  characteristics  and 
peculiarities  of  his  race.  He  has  a  strong  mind  in  a  strong  body. 
Well  grounded  in  the  rudiments  of  education  in  his  native  land,  he 
completed  his  intellectual  training  in  Kentucky  and  bears  the  diploma 
of  Transylvania  University  —  in  whose  list  of  graduates  may  be 
found  many  of  the  ablest  men  of  the  South-West.  Originally  a 
Whig,  Mr.  Beck  followed  John  C.  Breckinri^ge  into  the  Democratic 
party  at  a  period  when  the  pro-slavery  crusaders  had  gone  mad  and 


OBJECTION  TO  HOUSE   ORGANIZING.  291 

were  commanding,  indeed  morally  coercing,  the  services  of  a  great 
majority  of  the  able  and  ambitious  young  men  of  the  South.  He 
became  the  law-partner  of  Breckinridge,  and  was  zealously  and  de- 
votedly attached  to  him  to  the  end.  Had  Beck  been  a  native  of  the 
South  he  would  undoubtedly  have  followed  Breckinridge  hastily  and 
hot-headedly  into  the  rebellion.  He  was  saved  from  that  fate  by  the 
abundant  caution  and  the  sound  sense  which  he  inherited  with  his 
Scotch  blood. 

—  But  Mr.  Beck  had  all  the  sympathy  with  the  Rebellion  which  was 
necessary  to  secure  popular  support  in  Kentucky  —  without  which, 
indeed,  a  Democrat  in  that  State  has  had  no  chance  for  promotion 
since  the  war  closed.  He  has  grown  steadily  in  Congress  from  the 
day  of  his  entrance.  He  is  honest-minded,  straightforward,  extreme 
in  his  views  on  many  public  questions,  and  though  a  decided  partisan 
of  Southern  interests  has  always  had  the  tact  and  the  good  fortune  to 
maintain  kindly  relations  with  his  political  opponents  —  a  desirable 
end  to  which  his  generous  gift  of  Scotch  humor  has  essentially  aided 
him.  It  is  among  the  singular  revolutions  of  political  opinion  and 
political  power  in  this  country,  that  the  State  and  the  very  city 
made  memorable  by  Mr,  Clay's  impassioned  devotion  to  the  National 
Union  and  his  prolonged  advocacy  of  protection,  should  be  repre- 
sented in  Congress  by  a  disciple  of  the  extreme  State-rights  school 
and  by  a  radical  defender  of  free  trade. 


As  soon  as  the  Clerk  of  the  House  finished  the  calling  of  the  roll 
and  announced  that  a  quorum  had  answered  to  their  names,  Mr. 
Brooks  of  New  York  rose  and  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  there 
were  seventeen  absent  States,  ten  of  wh^ch,  belonging  to  the  late 
Confederacy,  were  not  called  at  all,  and  the  remaining  seven  — 
New  Hampshire,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  Kentucky,  Tennessee, 
Nebraska,  and  California  —  had  presented  no  credentials  of  mem- 
bers, inasmuch  as  under  their  respective  laws,  Representatives  to  the 
Fortieth  Congress  had  not  yet  been  chosen.  Among  the  absent 
were  seven  of  the  "old  thirteen"  —  an  absolute  majority  of  the 
States  which  founded  the  Republic.  The  absentees  in  all  amounted  to 
eighty  members ;  and  on  behalf  of  his  political  associates  Mr.  Brooks 
presented  a  formal  protest,  signed  by  every  Democratic  member 
present,  "  against  any  and  every  action  tending  to  the  organization 


292  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

of  this  House  until  the  absent  States  be  more  fully  represented." 
He  asked  that  it  be  entered  upon  the  Journal  as  the  protest  of  the 
minority  of  the  House.  Under  the  rules  the  Clerk  refused  to  receive 
or  submit  the  paper  for  consideration,  and  the  House  immediately 
proceeded  to  the  election  of  Speaker.  Mr.  Colfax  was  chosen  for 
the  third  and  last  time.  He  received  one  hundred  and  twenty-seven 
votes  against  thirty  cast  for  Mr.  Samuel  S.  Marshall,  a  highly 
respectable  Democratic  member  from  Illinois.  As  before,  Mr.  Col- 
fax,  in  his  remarks  when  he  took  the  chair,  sought  to  present  an 
embodiment  of  Republican  policy  on  current  issues.  He  declared 
that  "  the  freeman's  hands  should  wield  the  freeman's  ballot ; "  that 
"none  but  loyal  men  should  govern  a  land  which  loyal  sacrifices 
have  saved ; "  that  "  there  can  be  no  safe  or  loyal  reconstruction 
on  a  foundation  of  unrepentant  treason  or  disloyalty." 

The  principal  business  of  the  session  was  to  provide  supplement- 
ary legislation  to  the  Reconstruction  Act  which  had  been  passed 
over  the  President's  veto  only  two  days  before  the  new  Congress 
assembled.  That  Act,  from  a  variety  of  circumstances,  had  been 
forced  through  at  the  last  under  whip  and  spur.  Upon  close  exam- 
ination by  the  leading  Republicans  of  both  Senate  and  House  it  was 
found  to  be  defective  in  many  important  respects,  and  especially  to 
lack  the  detail  necessary  to  give  life  and  vigor  to  proceedings 
looking  to  the  practical  reconstruction  of  the  Southern  States.  The 
two  Houses  therefore  addressed  themselves  promptly  to  the  task  of 
supplying  the  necessary  amendments  and  additions.  On  the  19th 
of  March  they  sent  to  the  President  an  Act  prescribing  in  detail  the 
mode  for  the  registering  of  voters  in  the  insurrectionary  States,  and 
for  the  summoning  of  a  convention  to  frame  a  constitution  prepara- 
tory to  the  re-admission  of  each  State  to  representation.  The  Act 
declared  that  "  if  the  constitution  shall  be  ratified  by  a  majority  of 
the  votes  of  the  registered  electors  qualified  to  vote,  at  least  one- 
half  of  all  the  registered  voters  voting  upon  the  question,  a  copy  of 
the  same,  duly  certified,  shall  be  transmitted  to  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  who  shall  forthwith  transmit  the  same  to  Congress, 
and  if  it  shall  appear  to  Congress  that  the  election  was  one  at  which 
all  the  registered  and  qualified  electors  in  the  State  had  an  oppor- 
tunity to  vote  freely  and  without  restraint,  fear,  or  the  influence  of 
fraud,  and  if  Congress  shall  be  satisfied  that  such  constitution  meets 
the  approval  of  a  majority  of  all  the  qualified  electors  in  the  State, 
and  if  the  said  constitution  shall  be  declared  by  Congress  to  be  in 


THE  PRESIDENT'S  VETO.  293 

conformity  with  the  provisions  of  the  Act  to  which  this  is  supple- 
mentary, and  the  other  provisions  of  said  Act  shall  have  been  com- 
plied with,  and  the  said  constitution  shall  be  approved  by  Congress, 
the  State  shall  be  declared  entitled  to  representation,  and  senators 
and  representatives  shall  be  admitted  therefrom  as  therein  pro- 
vided." 

The  President  promptly  vetoed  the  bill.  Among  various  objec- 
tions he  said,  "  This  supplemental  bill  superadds  an  oath  to  be  taken 
by  every  person,  before  his  name  can  be  admitted  upon  the  registra- 
tion, that  he  'has  not  been  disfranchised  for  participation  in  any 
rebellion  or  civil  war  against  the  United  States.'  It  thus  imposes 
upon  every  person  the  necessity  and  responsibility  of  deciding  for 
himself,  under  the  penalty  of  punishment  by  a  military  commission 
if  he  makes  a  mistake,  what  works  disfranchisement  by  participation 
in  rebellion  and  what  amounts  to  such  participation.  .  .  .  The  ques- 
tion with  the  citizen  to  whom  this  oath  is  to  be  proposed  must  be  a 
fearful  one,  for  while  the  bill  does  not  declare  that  perjury  may  be 
assigned  for  such  false  swearing  nor  fix  any  penalty  for  the  offense, 
we  must  not  forget  that  martial  law  prevails  and  that  every  person 
is  answerable  to  a  military  commission,  without  previous  present- 
ment by  a  grand  jury,  for  any  charge  that  may  be  made  against  him, 
and  that  the  supreme  authority  of  the  military  commander  deter- 
mines the  question  as  to  what  is  an  offense  and  what  is  to  be  the 
measure  of  punishment.  ...  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  further  to 
investigate  the  details  of  this  bill.  No  consideration  could  induce 
me  to  give  my  approval  to  such  an  election  law  for  any  purpose,  and 
especially  for  the  great  purpose  of  framing  the  constitution  of  a 
State.  If  ever  the  American  citizen  should  be  left  to  the  free 
exercise  of  his  own  judgment,  it  is  when  he  is  engaged  in  the  work 
of  forming  the  fundamental  law  under  which  he  is  to  live.  That  is 
his  work  and  it  cannot  properly  be  taken  out  of  his  hands." 

The  whole  issue  presented  by  the  bill  was  but  another  of  the 
countless  phases  of  that  prolonged  and  fundamental  contest  between 
those  who  believed  that  guarantees  should  be  exacted  from  the  rebel 
States,  and  those  who  believed  that  these  States  should  be  freely  ad- 
mitted, without  condition  and  without  restraint,  to  all  the  privileges 
which  they  had  recklessly  thrown  away  in  their  mad  effort  to  destroy 
the  Government.  The  strength  of  each  side  had  again  been  well 
stated  in  the  debates  of  the  Senate  and  House  and  in  the  veto- 
message  of  the  President,  and  no  change  of  opinion  was  expected 


294  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

by  either  party  from  the  reasoning  or  the  protest  of  the  other.  The 
President's  argument  was  therefore  met  by  a  prompt  vote  passing 
the  bill  over  his  veto,  in  the  House  by  114  ayes  to  25  noes,  and  in 
,  the  Senate  by  40  ayes  to  7  noes.  The  resistance  was  very  slight, 
and  the  fruit  of  the  great  Republican  victory  of  1866  was  now  real- 
ized in  the  formidable  strength  which  the  President's  opponents 
exhibited  in  both  branches. 

The  session  lasted  until  the  thirtieth  day  of  March,  and  though 
Congress  had  then  completed  all  the  business  pressing  upon  its 
attention  the  Republican  leaders  would  not  permit  an  adjournment 
sine  die.  They  decided  to  meet  again  in  midsummer.  The  same 
necessity  that  had  induced  them  to  convene 'in  March  persuaded  them 
that  the  President  should  not  be  allowed  to  have  control  of  events 
for  eight  months  without  the  supervision  of  the  legislative  branch 
of  the  Government.  It  was  resolved  therefore  that  Congress  should 
meet  on  Wednesday,  July  3d.  The  vigilance  and  determination 
evinced  by  this  action  did  not  prove  useless  or  go  unrewarded. 
Only  a  few  weeks  after  Congress  had  taken  its  recess  the  danger 
anticipated  by  the  Republican  leaders,  from  hostile  interpretation  of 
the  Reconstruction  Acts  by  the  Attorney-General,  was  made  fully 
apparent.  On  the  24th  of  May  and  the  12th  of  June  Mr.  Stanbery 
gave  two  opinions  to  the  President,  which  in  many  respects  neu- 
tralized the  force  both  of  the  original  and  supplementary  acts  of 
Reconstruction.  His  adverse  views  were  elaborately  and  skilfully 
presented,  and  tended  to  embarrass  the  military  commanders  of 
the  Southern  districts  in  the  administration  of  law,  and  to  hinder  the 
registration  of  voters  and  the  holding  of  elections  for  constitutional 
conventions.  Republican  leaders  therefore  felt  not  only  justified  in 
the  precautions  they  had  taken  to  keep  the  power  of  Congress  alive, 
but  esteemed  it  peculiarly  fortunate  that  they  could  so  promptly 
prevent  the  evil  effects  which  might  otherwise  flow  from,  the  un- 
friendly constructions  of  the  Attorney-General.  The  principal  busi- 
ness of  the  July  session  was  to  provide  a  second  supplementary  Act 
which  effectually  remedied  all  the  objections  and  obstructions  which 
Mr.  Stanbery's  acute  legal  knowledge  had  suggested.  The  bill 
passed  both  branches  by  the  13th  of  July  and  reached  the  President 
on  the  14th  —  meeting  at  his  hands  the  same  fate  that  its  predeces- 
sors had  incurred.  On  the  19th  he  vetoed  it  —  rehearsing  the  objec- 
tions he  had  repeatedly  stated  on  the  same  issues. 

The  President  complained  that  within  less  than  a  year  Congress 


OMINOUS  WORDS  OF  THE  PRESIDENT.  295 

had  attempted  to  strip  the  Executive  Department  of  the  Government 
of  some  of  its  essential  powers.  "  The  military  commander,"  said  he, 
"is,  as  to  the  power  of  appointment,  made  to  take  the  place  of  the 
President,  and  the  General  of  the  Army  the  place  of  the  Senate,  and 
any  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  President  to  assert  his  own  Constitu- 
tional power  may,  under  pretense  of  law,  be  met  by  official  insub- 
ordination. It  is  to  be  feared  that  these  military  officers,  looking  to 
the  authority^  given  by  these  laws,  rather  than  to  the  letter  of  the 
Constitution,  will  recognize  no  authority  but  the  commander  of  the 
district  or  the  General  of  the  Army.  ...  If  there  were  no  other 
objection  than  this  to  the  proposed  legislation  it  would  be  sufficient. 
While  I  hold  the  chief  executive  authority  of  the  United  States, 
while  the  obligation  rests  upon  me  to  see  that  all  laws  are  faithfully 
executed,  I  can  never  willingly  surrender  that  trust  or  the  powers 
given  for  its  execution.  I  can  never  give  my  assent  to  be  made 
responsible  for  the  faithful  execution  of  laws,  and  at  the  same  time 
surrender  that  trust  and  the  powers  which  accompany  it  to  any 
other  executive  officer,  high  or  low,  or  to  any  number  of  executive 
officers." 

Many  of  those  who  kept  closest  watch  of  the  controversy  between 
the  President  and  Congress  saw  in  the  foregoing  words  something 
ominous.  In  their  apprehensions  of  evil  they  construed  it  as  a 
threat  that  the  President  would  exercise  his  power  as  Commander- 
in-Chief  of  the  Army  and  Navy  with  which  he  was  fully  invested  by 
the  Constitution,  to  change  the  assignment  of  military  officers  at 
will.  Should  he  stubbornly  or  capriciously  assert  this  power  he  might 
seriously  embarrass  the  entire  administration  of  the  Reconstruction 
Acts  in  the  approaching  registrations  and  elections  in  the  Southern 
States.  A  change  of  officers  at  a  single  point  might  frustrate  all  the 
preparations  for  the  reconstruction  of  a  State,  and  a  general  change 
might  produce  chaos  in  the  South  and  possibly  develop  a  spirit  of 
violence  of  which  no  man  could  measure  the  effect.  The  President's 
words  made  a  deep  impression  on  Congress.  Mr.  Boutwell  saw  in 
them  a  deadly  intent  "  which  provokes  and  demands  the  exercise  of 
the  highest  and  gravest  duty  of  this  House  "  —  meaning  that  the 
President  should  be  impeached.  Mr.  Randall  of  Pennsylvania 
taunted  Mr.  Boutwell  with  the  declaration  that  all  the  talk  of  im- 
peachment was  "  mere  bluster ; "  while  Mr.  Thaddeus  Stevens, 
though  believing  that  Mr.  Johnson  deserved  impeachment,  con- 
sidered it  "a  vain  and  futile  thing."  "  There  are,"  said  he,  "unseen 


296  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

agencies  at  work,  invisible  powers  operating  everywhere  in  this 
country,  which  will  protect  a  man  like  Johnson  when  called  upon." 
Debate,  however,  was  very  brief,  and  the  House  passed  the  bill  over 
the  veto  by  ayes  108,  noes  25.  In  the  Senate  there  was  no  discus- 
sion whatever  on  the  President's  message,  that  body  being  content  to 
pass  the  bill  against  his  objections  by  80  ayes  to  6  noes. 

The  Senate  and  House  were  both  ready  to  adjourn  on  the  20th  of 
July,  but  Mr.  Sumner,  Mr.  Howard  of  Michigan,  and  others  of  the  most 
radical  type  in  both  branches,  desired  that  Congress  might  remain 
in  session  for  the  summer  and  autumn,  or  at  least  have  such  short 
vacations  as  would  practically  amount  to  a  continuous  session. 
Their  object  was  to  keep  constant  watch  of  the  course  of  the  Admin- 
istration and  be  at  all  times  ready  to  neutralize  its  evil  purposes. 
Aside  from  the  great  personal  inconvenience  which  this  would  occa- 
sion to  many  members,  the  judgment  of  the  majority  was  against  so 
radical  a  step.  The  more  conservative  members  of  the  Republican 
party  feared  that  a  continuous  session  of  Congress  would  seriously 
increase  the  uneasiness  and  excitement  in  the  country  by  creating 
the  impression  that  the  Senate  and  House  were  sitting  as  a  commit- 
tee of  public  safety,  in  the  apprehension  of  a  civil  revolution.  The 
reply  of  those  who  opposed  the  adjournment  was  that  the  condition 
of  public  affairs  did  actually  tend  to  revolution,  and  that  instead  of 
fanning  the  popular  excitement  by  remaining  in  session,  Congress 
would  be  thus  most  wisely  allaying  the  fears  which  had  entered  the 
minds  of  so  large  a  number  of  the  people.  But  this  argument  did 
not  prevail,  and  the  conservative  view  secured  a  majority  in  both 
Houses.  The  vote  in  the  Senate  however  was  very  close,  there 
being  only  one  more  Republican  in  the  affirmative  than  in  the  nega- 
tive, leaving  to  Democratic  votes,  really,  the  decision  of  the  question. 
A  very  inconvenient  compromise  was  made  by  an  adjournment  to 
the  21st  of  November  —  only  a  fortnight  before  Congress  would 
convene  in  regular  annual  session  on  the  first  Monday  of  December. 
No  good  reason  was  assigned  for  so  extraordinary  a  step,  and  no 
benefit  resulted  from  it. 


The  Reconstruction  Acts,  both  original  and  supplementary,  were 
now  in  full  operation  throughout  the  South.  The  President  did  not 
interpose  serious  objection  to  the  assignment  of  the  Army  officers 
whose  names  were  suggested  by  General  Grant,  and  the  ten  insur- 


APPOINTMENT  OF  SOUTHERN  COMMANDERS.  297 

rectionary  States  not  yet  re-admitted  to  representation  were  re- 
manded to  military  government  with  apparent  quiet  and  order. 
General  Schofield  was  directed  to  take  charge  of  the  district  of  Vir- 
ginia ;  General  Sickles  was  placed  in  command  of  the  district  of 
North  Carolina  and  South  Carolina;  General  John  Pope  was  as- 
signed to  the  district  of  Georgia,  Alabama,  and  Florida;  General 
Ord  to  the  district  of  Mississippi  and  Arkansas ;  and  General  Sheri- 
dan to  the  district  of  Louisiana  and  Texas.  These  assignments  were 
made  with  due  promptness  after  the  enactment  of  the  laws,  and  the 
several  commanders  at  once  proceeded  to  their  novel  and  responsible 
duties.1 

1  The  President's  personal  hostility  to  some  of  the  officers  thus  assigned  was  well 
known,  and  surprise  was  expressed  that  he  did  not  countermand  or  qualify  the  order  of 
General  Grant  when  first  issued.  He  was  especially  unfriendly  to  General  Sheridan, 
and  late  in  the  summer  of  1867  relieved  him  from  his  command.  General  Hancock  was 
gazetted  as  Sheridan's  successor,  hut  he  did  not  reach  his  post  until  late  in  November, 
the  district  meanwhile  being  under  the  command,  first,  of  General  Charles  Griffin, 
and,  second,  of  General  Joseph  A.  Mower.  General  Hancock's  order  assuming  com- 
mand, issued  on  the  29th  of  November,  had  a  certain  political  significance.  He  expressed 
gratification  "  that  peace  and  quiet  reign  in  the  Department,"  and  that  in  his  purpose 
to  preserve  this  condition  of  things,  he  regarded  "  the  maintenance  of  the  civil  author- 
ities in  the  faithful  execution  of  the  laws  as  the  most  efficient  under  existing  circum- 
stances." He  said  that  when  insurrectionary  force  had  been  overthrown  and  peace 
established,  "the  military  power  should  cease  to  lead,  and  the  civil  administration 
resume  its  natural  and  rightful  dominion."  "Solemnly  impressed  with  these  views," 
the  General  announced  that  "  the  great  principles  of  American  liberty  are  still  the  lawful 
inheritance  of  the  people  and  ever  should  be.  The  right  of  trial  by  jury,  the  habeas 
corpus,  the  liberty  of  the  press,  the  freedom  of  speech,  the  natural  rights  of  persons, 
and  the  rights  of  property,  must  be  preserved." 

General  Sheridan  had  issued  an  order  defining  the  qualifications  of  those  who  might 
sit  on  juries  during  the  period  of  Reconstruction.  One  of  the  first  acts  of  General 
Hancock  was  to  annul  this  order.  He  declared  "that  the  determination  of  who  shall 
and  who  shall  not  be  jurors  appertains  to  the  legislative  power,"  and  he  indicated  his 
intention  of  carrying  out  the  existing  law  of  Louisiana  in  regard  to  the  selection  of 
juries.  General  Sheridan  had  distributed  certain  memoranda  of  disqualification,  together 
with  questions  to  be  proposed,  for  the  registrars.  Their  effect  in  substance  was  to  dis- 
qualify all  persons  who,  having  acted,  prior  to  January  26,  1861,  as  United-States  senators 
and  representatives,  electors,  officers  of  the  Army  and  Navy,  civil  officers  of  the  United  States, 
and  State  officers  provided  for  by  the  Constitution  of  the  State,  had  afterwards  engaged 
in  the  Rebellion ;  and  also  all  those  who  in  1862  and  1864  had  claimed  the  protection  of 
foreign  powers.  General  Hancock  set  aside  this  action,  declaring  that  he  dissented  from 
the  construction  given  to  the  Reconstruction  laws  therein,  and  ordered  the  registrars  to 
be  guided  by  their  own  interpretation  of  the  laws  and  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment. 
It  was  the  popular  understanding  that  General  Hancock,  in  these  successive  steps,  was 
acting  in  full  sympathy  with  the  wishes  and  designs  of  the  Administration,  in  all  of 
which  he  readily  concurred  as  a  Democrat. 

The  appointment  of  General  Pope  for  the  District  of  Georgia,  Alabama,  and  Florida, 
had  not  been  agreeable  to  the  President.  General  Pope's  political  convictions  were  of  a 
very  positive  character,  and  they  were  not  at  all  in  sympathy  with  the  National  Admin- 
istration. He  administered  the  Reconstruction  laws,  therefore,  in  their  full  spirit  and 


298  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Under  the  enlargements  of  suffrage  in  the  direction  of  loyalty, 
and  its  restrictions  in  the  direction  of  disloyalty,  the  Southern  States 
once  more  turned  their  attention  to  the  question  of  Reconstruction. 
They  saw,  as  the  law  intended  them  to  see,  that  military  govern- 
ment would  exist  until  the  loyal  inhabitants  of  those  States  should 
present  themselves  before  Congress  with  a  constitution  adapted  to 
the  changed  circumstances  resulting  from  the  war,  and  to  the  neces- 
sities superinduced  by  the  abolition  of  slavery.  The  Southern  men 
who  had  defiantly  rejected  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  and  had 
with  confidence  relied  upon  the  power  of  President  Johnson  to  vin- 
dicate their  position,  now  discovered  their  mistake,  and  were  reluc- 
tantly but  completely  convinced  that  the  only  road  to  representation 
in  Congress  for  their  States  was  through  submission  to  the  conditions 
imposed  by  the  Acts  of  Reconstruction,  —  conditions  far  more  exact- 
ing than  those  which  had  been  required  by  the  preceding  Congress 
and  which  they  had  so  unwisely  refused  to  accept. 

The  assignments  of  Army  officers  to  the  Southern  districts  were 
made  early  in  the  spring  of  1867.  From  that  time  onward  it  was 
hoped  that  the  preservation  of  order  would  be  secured  in  the  South, 

with  an  entire  belief  in  their  justice  and  equity.  He  insisted  011  fair  dealing,  and  sup- 
pressed all  interference  with  voters  by  violence  or  threats  of  violence  on  the  part  of  the 
late  rebels.  He  would  not  permit  the  menace  of  military  organizations,  and  expressly 
refused  to  allow  any  parading  of  armed  men,  except  of  United-States  troops.  It  was 
General  Pope's  opinion  that  the  South  had  seen  quite  enough  of  men  in  arms  within  the 
past  four  years,  and  he  believed  that  safety  and  order  would  be  best  maintained  by  hav- 
ing no  uniform  worn  except  that  of  the  Army  of  the  United  States,  and  no  other  flag 
shown  than  the  flag  of  the  Union.  Holding  these  pronounced  views,  aggressively  loyal 
in  every  thought  and  action,  General  Pope  was  naturally  in  antagonism  with  the  policy 
of  the  President.  Towards  the  close  of  the  year  he  was  relieved  of  his  command  and 
General  Meade  ordered  to  take  his  place. 

General  Sickles,  of  the  District  of  North  Carolina  and  South  Carolina,  was  relieved 
of  his  command  early  in  September  (1867),  and  General  E.  R.  S.  Canby  appointed  as  his 
successor.  General  Sickles  had  been  very  energetic  in  the  administration  of  affairs  in 
his  department,  and  had  shown  remarkable  aptitude  and  efficiency  in  the  discharge  of 
his  peculiar  duties,  —  exhibiting  in  his  administration  the  very  qualities  most  likely  to 
prove  offensive  to  the  President.  He  had  perhaps  the  most  difficult  command  of  any  of 
the  generals  on  duty  in  the  South,  as  the  State  of  South  Carolina  had  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Rebellion  presented  certain  phases  of  disobedience  to  Federal  authority 
peculiar  to  her  population  and  naturally  arising  from  her  antecedent  history.  General 
Sickles  had  some  trouble  with  Attorney-General  Stanbery,  and  asked  for  a  court  of  in- 
quiry, that  he  might  vindicate  himself  from  the  accusations  of  that  official. 

General  Schofield  and  General  Ord  alone  of  the  original  commanders  in  the  Southern 
military  districts  were  left  to  carry  through  the  work  of  Reconstruction.  They  both  dis- 
charged their  duties  with  intelligence  and  fidelity.  Nor  was  the  work  of  Reconstruction 
essentially  hindered  by  the  changes  in  other  departments.  It  is  the  trained  habit  of  the 
officers  of  the  United-States  Army  to  carry  out  their  orders  with  implicit  faith,  and  there 
is  seldom  a  conflict  as  to  the  line  of  duty  to  be  followed.  If  there  was  any  exception,  it 


ANXIETY  CONCERNING  THE  SOUTH.  299 

and  that  the  rights  of  all  classes  would  be  adequately  protected. 
But  notwithstanding  the  anticipation  of  this  desirable  result,  there 
was  throughout  the  summer  and  autumn  of  1867  a  feeling  of  great 
anxiety  concerning  the  condition  of  the  Southern  States,  —  a  con- 
stant apprehension  that  some  outbreak  similar  to  that  in  New 
Orleans  the  preceding  year  might  lead  to  deplorable  consequences, 
among  the  least  of  which  would  be  the  postponement  of  the  organi- 
zation of  State  governments.  The  cause  of  this  solicitude  among 
Northern  people  was  the  novel  experiment  in  the  South  of  allowing 
loyal  men  regardless  of  race  or  color  to  share  in  the  suffrage  and  to 
participate  in  the  administration  of  the  Government.  Under  any 
less  authoritative  mandate  than  that  which  is  conveyed  in  a  military 
order  with  the  requisite  force  behind  it,  the  Southern  communities 
would  never  have  accepted  or  submitted  to  the  conditions  thus  im- 
posed. But  the  sympathy  which  their  condition  under  other  circum- 
stances might  have  evoked  in  the  North,  was  stifled  by  the  pertinent 
consideration  that  they  had  refused  other  forms  of  Reconstruction, 
and  had  wilfully  drawn  upon  themselves  all  that  was  unwelcome  in 
the  one  now  about  to  be  enforced.  It  was  to  be  noted  moreover 
that  the  feature  which  was  most  unwelcome  —  impartial  suffrage  — 

was  in  regard  to  the  course  pursued  by  General  Hancock.  His  conduct  became  a  subject 
of  controversy,  and  the  popular  division  respecting  its  merits  was  on  the  political  line. 
The  National  Administration  and  the  Democratic  party,  both  North  and  South,  ap- 
plauded every  thing  which  General  Hancock  said  and  did  in  Louisiana.  The  Republi- 
can party  throughout  the  country,  and  the  General  commanding  the  army,  who  was 
about 'to  be  nominated  for  the  Presidency,  united  in  strong  disapproval  of  his  course. 
But  General  Hancock's  construction  of  the  laws  under  which  he  was  acting  was  the 
same  as  that  held  by  the  Attorney-General  of  the  United  States,  and  he  thus  felt  abun- 
dantly justified  and  fortified  in  his  position.  He  disobeyed  no  specific  order  of  the  Gen- 
eral commanding  the  army,  and,  even  if  there  had  been  a  difference  between  them, 
General  Hancock  was  sure  of  the  sympathy  and  support  of  their  common  superior  —  the 
President  of  the  United  States. 

It  was  however  the  subsequent  opinion  of  General  Grant  that  much  of  the  disorder 
and  bloodshed  in  the  State  of  Louisiana  during  the  national  election  of  1868  had  resulted 
from  the  military  government  of  General  Hancock.  It  was  not  his  belief  that  General 
Hancock  had  the  slightest  desire  or  design  to  produce  such  results,  but  that  they  were 
the  outgrowth  of  the  encouragement  which  the  rebels  of  Louisiana  received  from  the 
changes  which  General  Hancock  inaugurated  in  the  manner  of  administering  the  Recon- 
struction Laws.  Aside  however  from  the  conduct  of  General  Hancock,  the  removal  of 
General  Sheridan  from  the  Louisiana  District  was  unqualifiedly  offensive  to  General 
Grant  in  a  personal  sense,  and  contrary  to  his  best  judgment  on  grounds  of  public  policy 
and  safety.  His  attachment  to  Sheridan  was  very  strong,  and  a  wrong  against  the  latter 
was  sooner  or  later  sure  to  be  resented  by  General  Grant.  His  feelings  on  the  question 
were  promptly  and  significantly  shown  when  he  became  President.  Inaugurated  on  the 
4th  of  March,  he  caused  an  army  order  to  be  issued  on  the  morning  of  the  5th,  restoring 
General  Sheridan  to  his  former  command  in  Louisiana,  and  ordering  General  Hancock 
to  the  remote  and  peaceful  Department  of  Dakota. 


300  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

was  the  one  especially  founded  upon  justice,  abstract  as  well  as 
practical. 

Conventions  were  held  successively  in  all  the  States,  the  elections 
being  conducted  in  good  order,  while  every  man  entitled  to  vote  was 
fully  secured  in  his  suffrage.  The  conventions  were  duly  assembled, 
constitutions  formed,  submitted  in  due  time,  and  approved  by  popu- 
lar vote.  State  governments  were  promptly  organized  under  these 
organic  laws,  Legislatures  were  elected,  and  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment ratified  in  each  of  the  States  with  as  hearty  a  unanimity  as 
in  the  preceding  winter  it  had  been  rejected  by  the  same  commu- 
nities. The  proceedings  were  approximately  uniform  in  all  the 
States,  and  the  constitutions,  with  such  minor  differences  and  adapta- 
tions as  circumstances  required,  were  in  all  essential  points  the  same. 
All  were  ordained  in  the  spirit  of  liberty,  all  prohibited  the  existence 
of  any  form  of  slavery,  and  all  heartily  recognized  the  supreme  sov- 
ereignty of  the  National  Government  as  having  been  indisputably 
established  by  the  overthrow  of  the  Rebellion  which  was  undertaken 
to  confirm  the  adverse  theory  of  State-rights. 

These  proceedings  in  the  South  were  in  full  progress  when  the 
second  or  long  session  of  the  Fortieth  Congress  began,  on  the  first 
Monday  of  December,  1867.  While  President  Johnson  had  not  inter- 
posed any  obstructions  to  the  working  of  the  Reconstruction  Act 
which  had  not  been  effectively  cured  by  the  two  supplementary  Acts, 
he  had  neither  concealed  nor  abated  his  utter  hostility  to  the  policy 
of  Congress,  —  a  form  of  hostility  that  grew  in  rancor  in  proportion 
as  he  had  been  thwarted  and  rendered  powerless  by  the  enactment 
of  the  laws  over  his  veto.  When  Congress  came  together  he  seemed 
to  have  gathered  all  his  strength  for  a  final  assault  upon  its  Recon- 
struction work  and  for  a  final  vindication  of  his  own  policy.  His 
message  was  laden  with  every  form  of  attack  which  ingenuity  could 
devise  to  throw  discredit  upon  Congress,  and  if  possible  to  affright 
the  people  by  the  dismal  consequences  destined  in  his  judgment  to 
follow  the  flagrant  violation  of  the  Constitution  which  he  saw  in  the 
Reconstruction  policy.  He  appealed  to  the  people  on  the  ground  of 
patriotism,  public  safety,  and  personal  interest.  He  pictured  anew 
the  advantage  and  the  grandeur  of  having  the  old  Union  fully  re- 
stored ;  he  warned  the  people  of  the  danger  of  sowing  the  seeds  of 
another  rebellion  by  allowing  continued  maltreatment  of  the  South- 
ern people  ;  and  he  appealed  to  the  commercial  and  financial  interests 
of  the  country  by  pointing  out  how  every  form  of  property  was 


THE  PRESIDENT'S  ARGUMENT  REPEATED.  301 

endangered  by  the  chaotic  condition  of  affairs  to  which,  in  his  belief 
the  policy  of  Congress  was  steadily  tending.  Beyond  these  consid- 
erations he  endeavored  to  arouse  among  the  people  all  possible  preju- 
dice against  negro  suffrage.  He  declared  that  "of  all  the  dangers 
which  our  Nation  has  yet  encountered,  none  are  equal  to  those  which 
must  result  from  the  success  of  the  effort  now  making  to  Africanize 
the  half  of  our  country."  uWe  must  not,"  said  he,  "delude  our- 
selves. It  will  require  a  strong  standing  army,  and  probably  more 
than  two  hundred  millions  per  annum,  to  maintain  the  supremacy  of 
negro  governments  after  they  are  established,  —  a  sum  thus  thrown 
away  which  would,  if  properly  used,  form  a  sinking-fund  large  enough 
to  pay  the  whole  National  debt  in  less  than  fifteen  years." 

The  argument  of  the  President  however  was  not  merely  a  twice- 
told  tale.  It  had  been  repeated  many  times  and  though  never  more 
artfully  stated  than  now,  it  fell  upon  unlistening  ears,  making  no 
impression  whatever  upon  Congress  and  very  little  upon  the  coun- 
try. The  process  of  Reconstruction  went  on,  and  its  first  fruit  was 
the  presentation  of  a  constitution  from  Arkansas,  framed  in  exact 
accordance  with  the  requirements  prescribed  by  Congress,  and  ac- 
companied by  proof  that  the  State  had  ratified  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution.  A  bill  was  introduced  in  the 
House  by  Mr.  Stevens,  on  the  7th  of  May  (1868),  to  admit  the 
State  of  Arkansas  to  representation  in  Congress.  The  question  of 
Reconstruction  had  been  debated  so  elaborately  and  for  so  long  a 
period  of  time  that  there  was  little  disposition  now  to  open  the  sub- 
ject afresh,  and  with  far  less  resistance  than  had  been  anticipated  the 
Arkansas  bill  was  passed  in  both  branches,  and  the  State  declared 
entitled  to  all  those  rights  in  the  Union  which  she,  with  her  sisters 
in  rebellion,  had  so  flippantly  thrown  aside  in  1861.  A  fundamental 
condition  was  attached  to  the  admission,  declaring  "that  the  Con- 
stitution of  Arkansas  shall  never  be  so  amended  or  changed  as  to 
deprive  any  citizen  or  class  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  of  the 
right  to  vote,  who  are  entitled  to  vote  by  the  Constitution  herein 
recognized,  except  as  a  punishment  for  such  crimes  as  are  now  felo- 
nies at  common  law,  whereof  they  shall  have  been  duly  convicted 
under  laws  equally  applicable  to  all  the  inhabitants  of  said  State." 

The  Act  re-admitting  Arkansas  to  the  right  of  representation 
was  followed  immediately  by  one  of  the  same  general  scope  with 
respect  to  the  States  of  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Louisiana, 
Georgia,  Alabama,  and  Florida.  The  same  fundamental  condition 


302  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

already  cited  as  imposed  on  Arkansas  was  imposed  on  all  these 
States,  and  the  further  condition  was  exacted  from  Georgia  that 
certain  provisions  in  her  Constitution  should  by  a  solemn  Act  of 
her  Legislature  be  declared  null  and  void.  The  provisions  to  be 
thus  annulled  related  to  the  collection  of  debts,  and  their  spirit  and 
intent  may  be  inferred  from  the  opening  declaration  that  "  no  court 
in  this  State  shall  have  jurisdiction  to  try  or  determine  any  suit 
against  any  resident  of  this  State  upon  any  contract  or  agreement 
made  or  implied  prior  to  the  first  day  of  June,  1865,  or  upon  any 
contract  made  in  renewal  of  any  debt  existing  prior  to  the  date 
named."  The  provision  as  the  Georgia  convention  had  framed  it 
would  have  wrought  great  injury  to  a  large  number  of  creditors  in 
the  North.  It  was  a  complete  outlawry  of  thousands  of  dollars 
legally  and  equitably  due  to  honest  creditors,  and  Georgia  was  com- 
pelled to  agree  to  its  nullification  before  her  senators  and  representa- 
tives could  be  admitted  to  seats  in  Congress. 

The  bills  admitting  these  States  to  representation  did  not  secure 
Executive  approval.  On  the  20th  of  June  (1868)  the  President 
sent  a  message  to  the  House  of  Representatives  with  his  objections 
to  the  Arkansas  bill.  "  The  approval  of  this  bill,"  said  he,  "  would 
be  an  admission  on  the  part  of  the  Executive  that  the  Act  for  the 
more  efficient  government  of  the  rebel  States,  passed  March  2,  1867, 
and  the  Act  supplementary  thereto,  were  proper  and  constitutional. 
My  opinion  however  in  reference  to  these  measures  has  undergone 
no  change,  but  on  the  contrary  has  been  strengthened  by  the  results 
which  have  attended  their  execution."  He  then  proceeded  to  state 
his  objections  as  he  had  so  often  done  before,  with  no  variation  of 
argument,  without  the  production  of  new  facts.  —  Five  days  later,  on 
the  25th  of  June,  the  President  communicated  his  objections  to  the 
bill  admitting  the  other  Southern  States  to  representation.  Ha  had 
apparently  become  fatigued  with  the  reiteration  of  his  arguments, 
and  he  frankly  stated  that  he  would  not  "undertake  at  this  time 
to  re-open  the  discussion  upon  the  grave  Constitutional  question 
involved  in  the  Reconstruction  Acts."  He  declared  that  "  the  bill 
assumes  authority  over  States  which  has  never  been  delegated  to 
Congress,"  and  "imposes  conditions  which  are  in  derogation  of 
equal  rights."  The  vetoes  did  not  evoke  long  debate  in  either  House, 
and  both  bills  were  promptly  passed  over  the  objections  of  the  Presi- 
dent by  a  party  vote,  amounting  indeed  to  more  than  three  to  one  in 
both  Senate  and  House. 


POSITION  OF  THE   REPUBLICANS.  303 

In  the  arguments  which  the  President  had  found  such  frequent 
occasion  to  submit,  he  quietly  ignored  the  facts  of  secession,  the  crime 
of  rebellion,  the  'ruthless  sundering  of  Constitutional  bonds  which 
these  States  had  attempted.  He  took  no  note  of  the  immense  losses 
both  of  life  and  property  which  they  had  inflicted  upon  the  Nation, 
and  gave  no  consideration  to  the  suffering  which  they  had  cause- 
lessly brought  upon  the  people.  If  the  President's  logic  should 
be  accepted  as  indicating  the  true  measure  of  Constitutional  obliga- 
tion imposed  on  the  different  members  of  the  Union,  then  any  State 
might  rebel  at  any  time,  seize  and  destroy  the  National  property, 
levy  war,  form  alliances  with  hostile  nations,  and  thus  subject  the 
Republic  to  great  peril  and  great  outlay,  her  citizens  to  murder  and 
to  pillage.  If  the  rebellious  State  be  finally  subdued,  the  National 
Government  must  not  attach  the  slightest  condition  to  her  re-admis- 
sion to  the  Union  ;  must  not  impose  discipline  or  even  administer 
reproof.  The  fact  that  the  rebellion  fails  is  the  full  warrant  for  its 
guilty  authors  to  be  at  once  repossessed  of  all  the  rights  and  all  the 
privileges  which  in  the  frenzy  of  an^er  and  disobedience  they  had 
thrown  away.  Such  was  in  effect  tha  argument  of  the  President 
throughout  the  Reconstruction  contest ;  such  was  the  demand  of  the 
leaders  of  the  Rebellion ;  such  was  the  concession  which  the  Demo- 
cratic party  constantly  urged  in  Congress,  through  the  press,  and  in 
all  the  channels  through  which  its  great  power  was  exerted. 

The  position  of  Republicans  was  steadily  the  opposite  of  that 
described.  They  held  that  the  States  which  had  rushed  into  a  rebel- 
lion so  wicked,  so  causeless,  and  so  destructive,  should  not  be  allowed 
to  resume  their  places  of  authority  in  the  Union  except  under  such 
conditions  as  would  guard,  so  far  as  human  foresight  could  avail, 
against  the  outbreak  of  another  insurrection.  They  should  return 
to  the  Union  on  precisely  the  same  terms  as  those  on  which  the  loyal 
States  held  their  places ;  they  should  have  the  same  privileges  and  be 
subjected  to  the  same  conditions.  As  slavery  had  been  the  chief  inciting 
cause  of  disunion,  slavery  should  die.  As  the  vicious  theory  of  State- 
rights  had  been  constantly  at  enmity  with  the  true  spirit  of  Nationality, 
the  Organic  Law  of  the  Republic  should  be  so  amended  that  no  stand- 
ing-room for  the  heresy  would  be  left.  As  the  basis  of  representation 
in  the  .Constitution  had  always  given  the  slave  States  an  advantage, 
those  States,  now  that  slavery  was  abolished,  should  not  be  permitted 
to  oppress  the  negro  population  and  use  them  merely  for  an  enlarged 
Congressional  power  to  the  white  men  who  had  precipitated  the 


304  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

rebellion.  As  the  war  to  maintain  Union  and  Liberty  had  cost  a 
vast  treasure  and  sacrificed  countless  lives,  the  States  that  had  forced 
the  bloody  contest  should  agree  by  solemn  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution that  the  National  debt  and  the  pension  to  the  soldier  should 
be  secured.  These  conditions  —  applying  to  all  the  States  alike,  to 
the  loyal  and  the  disloyal  in  the  same  measure  —  must  be  honorably 
agreed  to  by  the  States  that  had  gone  into  Disunion  before  they 
should  be  permitted  to  resume  and  enjoy  the  blessings  of  Union. 
History  and  the  just  judgment  of  mankind  will  vindicate  the  wisdom 
and  the  righteousness  of  the  Republican  policy,  and  that  vindication 
will  always  carry  with  it  the  condemnation  of  Andrew  Johnson. 


The  long  contest  over  Reconstruction,  so  far  as  it  involved  the 
re-admission  of  the  States  to  representation,  was  practically  ended. 
Eight  of  the  eleven  Confederate  States,  at  the  close  of  June  1868, 
had  their  senators  and  representatives  in  Congress.  Three  —  Vir- 
ginia, Mississippi,  and  Texas  —  were  prevented  by  self-imposed  ob- 
stacles from  enjoying  the  same  privilege  until  after  President  John- 
son had  retired  from  office.  Of  the  representatives  on  the  floor  of 
the  Fortieth  Congress  from  the  eight  States  lately  in  rebellion, 
only  two  were  Democrats.  The  senators  were  unanimously  Repub- 
lican. Of  the  aggregate  number  about  one-half  were  natives  of  the 
South.  The  war  upon  the  "  Carpet-bagger  "  had  not  yet  reached  its 
era  of  savage  atrocity,  but  the  indignation  pervading  the  governing 
classes  of  the  South,  as  they  were  termed,  was  poured  forth  in  un- 
stinted measure  upon  the  heads  of  all  native  Southerners  who  con- 
sented to  accept  offices  conferred  by  negro  votes.  It  was  evident 
that  the  admission  of  the  States  to  representation  was  to  be  taken  as 
the  signal  for  a  new  contest  in  the  South  —  embittered  in  its  character 
and  sanguinary  in  its  results.  The  men  who  had  been  fo'remost  in 
plunging  their  States  into  the  vortex  of  rebellion  were  determined  to 
rule  them  —  their  determination  being  of  that  type  which  disregards 
the  restraint  of  law  and  considers  that  the  end  justifies  the  means. 

With  all  the  advantages  of  old  association  and  in  numberless  in- 
stances of  kindly  relation  with  the  colored  race,  the  former  masters 
showed  themselves  singularly  deficient  in  the  tact  and  management 
necessary  to  win  the  negroes  and  bind  them  closely  to  their  interest, 
in  the  new  conditions  which  emancipation  had  created.  Of  the  evil  re- 


USE  OF  VETO   BY  EARLIER  PRESIDENTS.  307 

character  without  taking  into  account  these  qualities  —  qualities 
which  were  both  the  remote  and  immediate  cause  of  his  extraor- 
dinary career  as  Chief  Magistrate. 


The  earlier  Presidents,  filled  with  the  spirit  of  the  convention 
that  formed  the  Constitution,  were  extremely  careful  in  the  use  of 
the  veto-power.  In  eight  years  Washington  used  it  but  twice. 
Neither  John  Adams  nor  Thomas  Jefferson  used  it  even  once.  Mad- 
ison resorted  to  it  three  times,  Monroe  only  once,  John  Quincy 
Adams  in  not  a  single  instance.  Under  the  first  six  Presidents,  the 
veto-power  had  been  used  but  six  times  in  all ;  unless  there  should 
be  included  some  private  bills  sent  back  for  correction  and  not 
in  any  sense  furnishing  matter  of  contest  between  parties.  The 
country  had  thus  been  educated  by  the  sages  of  the  era  of  the  Con- 
stitution in  the  belief  that  only  an  extraordinary  occasion  justified  a 
resort  to  what,  in  the  popular  dislike  of  its  character,  had  received 
the  name  of  "  the  one-man  power."  President  Jackson,  therefore,  sur- 
prised the  country  and  shocked  conservative  citizens  by  his  frequent 
employment  of  this  great  prerogative.  During  his  term  he  thwarted 
the  wish  and  the  expressed  resolve  of  Congress  no  less  than  eleven 
times  on  measures  of  great  public  consequence.  Seven  of  these 
vetoes  were  of  the  kind  which,  during  his  Presidency,  received  the 
name  of  "  pocket-vetoes." 

In  Madison's  administration  a  bill  which  reached  the  President 
during  the  last  ten  days  of  the  session  failed  by  accident  or  inad- 
vertence to  receive  the  President's  signature,  and  did  not  become  a 
law.  Mr.  Webster  is  authority  for  saying  that  there  was  not  a  single 
instance  prior  to  the  administration  of  General  Jackson  in  which 
the  President  by  design  omitted  to  sign  a  bill  and  yet  did  not  return 
it  to  Congress.  "  The  silent  veto,"  said  he,  "  is  the  exclusive  adop- 
tion of  the  present  administration."  There  had  been  instances  in 
which,  during  a  session  of  Congress,  a  President,  unwilling  to  ap- 
prove and  yet  not  prepared  to  veto  a  measure,  suffered  it  to  become 
a  law  by  the  lapse  of  the  Constitutional  period  of  ten  days ;  but  it 
was  an  entirely  new  device,  to  defeat  a  bill  by  permitting  the  period 
of  less  than  ten  days  to  expire  at  the  close  of  the  session  —  defeat  it 
without  action,  without  expression  of  opinion,  without  the  responsi- 
bility which  justly  attaches  to  the  Executive  office.  Commenting 


308  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

with  great  power,  at  the  time,  upon  the  new  use  of  the  veto-power 
in  all  its  forms  by  President  Jackson,  Mr.  Webster  declared  its  ten- 
dency was  "  to  disturb  the  harmony  which  ought  always  to  exist 
between  Congress  and  the  Executive,  and  to  turn  that  which  the 
Constitution  intended  only  as  an  extraordinary  remedy  for  extraor- 
dinary cases,  into  a  common  means  of  making  Executive  discretion 
paramount  to  the  discretion  of  Congress  in  the  enactment  of  laws." 
It  was  literally  making  the  extreme  medicine  of  the  Constitution  its 
daily  bread. 

An  example  set  by  so  strong  a  ruler  as  Jackson,  especially  in  the 
establishment  of  a  practice  so  congenial  to  man's  natural  love  of 
power,  was  certain  to  be  followed  by  other  Presidents. .  It  was  fol- 
lowed so  vigorously  indeed  that  the  forty  years  succeeding  Jack- 
son's advent  to  power  presented  a  strong  contrast  with  the  forty 
years  which  preceded  it.  The  one  began  with  Washington:  the 
other  ended  with  Andrew  Johnson.  Mr.  Van  Buren,  though  in  all 
respects  a  lineal  heir  to  the  principles  of.  Jackson,  did  not  imitate 
him  in  the  frequent  use  of  the  veto-power.  But  Mr.  Tyler  on  nine 
different  occasions  ran  counter  to  the  action  of  Congress  by  the 
interposition  of  his  veto.  Mr.  Polk  resorted  to  it  in  three  signal 
instances,  but  neither  General  Taylor  nor  Mr.  Fillmore  came  in  con- 
flict with  Congress  on  a  single  measure.  President  Pierce  almost 
rivaled  General  Jackson  in  the  ten  vetoes  with  which  he  emphasized 
"his  own  views  as  distinct  from  those  of  Congress.  'Mr.  Buchanan 
used  his  arbitrary  power  on  four  occasions  during  his  term.  Mr. 
Lincoln  permitted  one  bill  to  be  defeated,  as  already  noted  in  these 
pages,  by  the  expiration  of  Congress,  and  arrested  the  passage  of 
another  by  direct  use  of  the  veto.  President  Johnson,  who  in  many 
features  of  his  career  has  been  suspected  of  an  attempted  imitation 
of  Jackson,  far  surpassed  his  great  prototype  in  the  use  of  the  veto- 
power,  employing  it  directly  in  no  less  than  twenty-one  ^instances, 
besides  pocketing  at  least  two  bills  of  public  importance.  The  aggre- 
gate number  of  vetoes,  therefore,  in  the  forty  years  that  followed 
General  Jackson's  first  election  exceeded  fifty,  as  against  six  for  the 
forty  years  preceding  it. 

It  will  not  escape  observation  that  the  most  frequent  resort  to 
the  veto  has  been  by  those  Presidents  who  were  chosen  by  the  po- 
litical organization  which  has  always  declared  its  hostility  to  Execu- 
tive power.  The  Democratic  party  had  its  origin  and  its  early 
growth  in  the  cry  against  the  overshadowing  influence  of  the  Presi- 


RATIFICATION  OF  FOURTEENTH   AMENDMENT.  309 

dential  office  —  going  so  far  in  their  denunciations  as  to  declare  that 
it  was  aping  royalty  in  its  manners  and  copying  monarchy  in  its  pre- 
rogatives. The  men  who  made  this  outcry  defeated  John  Quincy 
Adams  who  never  used  the  veto,  and  installed  Jackson  who  resorted 
to  it  on  all  occasions  when  his  judgment  differed  from  the  conclusion 
of  a  majority  of  Congress.  Neither  Taylor  nor  Fillmore  —  both  reared 
in  the  Whig  school  —  ever  attempted  to  defeat  the  will  of  Congress, 
though  each  wielded  Executive  power  at  a  time  when  questions 
even  more  exciting  than  those  of  Jackson's  era  engaged  public  atten- 
tion. Mr.  Lincoln  presents  a  strong  contrast  with  his  predecessors, — 
Pierce  and  Buchanan,  —  illustrating  afresh  the  contradiction  that  the 
party  declaiming  most  loudly  against  Executive  power  has  constantly 
abused  it.  Mr.  Tyler  and  Mr.  Johnson  were  both  chosen  by  the  op- 
ponents of  the  Democracy,  but  they  were  both  reared  in  that  school, 
and  both  returned  to  it  —  exhibiting  in  their  apostasy  the  readiness 
with  which  the  Democratic  mind  turns  to  the  tyranny  of  the  veto. 


The  success  of  reconstruction  in  the  South  carried  with  it  the 
ratification  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  by  the  requisite  number  of 
States.  The  result  was  duly  certified  by  Mr.  Seward  as  Secretary 
of  State,  on  the  twenty-eighth  day  of  July,  1868,  and  the  Amendment 
was  thenceforward  a  part  of  the  organic  law  of  the  nation.  It  had 
been  carried,  from  first  to  last,  as  a  party  measure — unanimously  sup- 
ported by  the  Republicans,  unanimously  opposed  by  the  Democrats. 
Its  grand  and  beneficent  provisions  failed  to  attract  the  vote  of  a 
single  Democratic  member  in  any  State  Legislature  in  the  whole 
Union.  Wherever  the  Democrats  were  in  majority  the  Legislature 
rejected  it,  and  in  every  Legislature  where  the  Republicans  had 
control  the  Democrats  in  minority  voted  against  it.  Not  only  was 
this  true,  but  the  States  of  Ohio  and  New  Jersey,  which  had  ratified 
it  in  1866-67  when  their  Legislatures  were  Republican,  formally 
voted  in  1868,  when  the  Democrats  had  come  into  power,  to  recall 
their  assent  to  the  Amendment  and  to  record  their  opposition  to  its 
adoption.  It  is  very  seldom  in  the  history  of  political  issues,  even 
when  partisan  feeling  is  most  deeply  developed,  that  so  absolute  a 
division  is  found  as  was  recorded  upon  the  question  of  adopting 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  It  has  not  been  easy  in  succeeding 
years  to  comprehend  the  deep-seated,  all-pervading  hostility  of  the 


310  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Democratic  party  to  this  great  measure.  Even  on  the  Thirteenth 
Amendment,  containing  the  far  more  radical  proposition  to  abolish 
slavery,  a  few  Democrats,  moved  by  philanthropic  motives,  broke 
from  the  restraint  of  party  and  honored  themselves  by  recording 
their  votes  on  the  side  of  humanity  and  justice ;  but  on  the  Four- 
teenth Amendment  the  line  of  Democratic  hostility  in  Nation  and 
in  State  was  absolutely  unbroken. 

It  seems  incredible  that  Democrats  can  be  satisfied  with  the  rec- 
ord made  by  their  party  on  this  most  grave  and  important  question. 
Every  one  of  the  many  objects  aimed  at  in  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment is  founded  upon  a  basis  of  justice,  of  liberty,  of  an  enlarged  and 
enlightened  nationality.  Its  minor  provisions  might  be  regarded  as 
temporary  in  their  nature,  but  its  leading  provisions  are  permanent 
and  are  essential  to  the  vitality  of  a  true  republic.  Even  those 
which  may  be  held  as  temporary  deeply  affect  more  than  one  genera- 
tion of  American  citizens,  and  are  of  themselves  sufficiently  important 
to  justify  a  great  struggle  for  their  adoption. 

It  was  certainly  of  inestimable  concern  to  the  honor  of  the 
country  that  those  who  had  shed  their  blood  and  those  who  had 
given  their  treasure  for  its  defense,  should  have  their  claims  upon 
the  national  justice  placed  beyond  the  whim,  or  the  caprice,  or  the 
malice  of  an  accidental  majority  in  Congress.  Nor  would  it  have 
been  wise  to  leave  open  to  those  who  in  the  conflict  of  arms  had  lost 
their  slaves,  the  temptation  to  besiege  Congress  and  the  Legislatures 
of  their  States  for  compensation.  Such  an  opportunity  would  have 
been  a  menace  to  the  public  credit,  and  would  have  proved  a  con- 
stant source  of  corruption.  The  Republicans  therefore  said,  uWe 
shall  incorporate  the  right  of  the  soldier  to  his  pension,  and  of  the 
public  creditor  to  repayment,  in  the  very  Constitution  of  the  Re- 
public ;  and  shall  in  the  same  solemn  manner  decree  that  as  slavery 
instigated  the  drawing  of  the  sword  against  the  life  of  the  nation, 
and  justly  perished  by  the  sword,  its  assumed  value  shall  not  be 
placed  upon  the  free  people  of  the  United  States  as  a  mortgage 
whose  payment  may  be  exacted  from  their  property  and  their  toil." 
Against  these  just  provisions,  which  in  their  nature  are  limited  as 
to  time,  the  Democrats  in  Congress  and  in  every  Legislature  of  the 
Union  recorded  an  absolutely  unanimous  vote. 

Another  provision  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  temporary  in 
its  application,  indeed  necessarily  limited  to  the  existing  generation, 
was  demanded  by  the  Republicans.  The  great  mass  of  those  en- 


THE  BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION.  311 

gaged  in  the  Rebellion  were  pardoned  the  moment  their  arms  were 
laid  down.  But  the  leaders  who,  in  official  position  before  the  war, 
had  solemnly  sworn  to  support  the  Constitution,  were  held  to  be  far 
more  guilty  than  the  multitude  who  followed  them.  They  deliber- 
ately rebelled  against  a  government  to  which,  on  their  consciences  and 
on  their  oaths,  they  had  given  their  personal  pledge  of  fidelity.  The 
Republicans  did  not  propose  to  visit  even  these  chief  offenders  with 
pains  and  penalties ;  but  they  resolved  to  place  in  the  Constitution 
a  prohibition  upon  their  holding  office  under  the  National  govern- 
ment until  after  two-thirds  of  both  branches  of  Congress,  satisfied  of 
their  good  intentions,  should  remove  their  disabilities.  The  Dem- 
ocrats unanimously  voted  against  even  this  mild  discipline  to  those 
who  precipitated  the  desperate  war,  thereby  declaring  their  willing- 
ness, if  not  their  desire,  that  the  most  guilty  should  fare  as  well  as 
the  innocent ;  that  for  example  Mr.  Toombs  might  resume  his  seat 
as  a  senator  from  Georgia,  Mr.  Breckinridge  as  a  senator  from  Ken- 
tucky, Mr.  Benjamin  as  a  senator  from  Louisiana,  Mr.  Jefferson  Davis 
as  a  senator  from  Mississippi. 

Still  another  provision  of  the  Amendment  which  might  prove 
temporary  in  its  application,  or  might  prove  permanent,  as  the 
South  should  decide,  was  that  relating  to  representation  in  Con- 
gress. On  this  point  the  Republicans  held,  as  has  been  so  often 
repeated,  that  the  negro  should  not  be  included  in  the  basis  of  repre- 
sentation until  he  was  admitted  to  suffrage.  There  is  such  abso- 
lute justice  and  fair  dealing  in  this  proposition,  that  no  reply  which 
deserves  to  be  called  an  argument  has  ever  been  made  to  it.  The 
original  provision  in  the  Constitution  by  which  three-fifths  of  the 
slaves  were  enumerated  in  the  basis  of  representation,  agreed  to 
originally  as  a  compromise  in  connection  with  the  subject  of  direct 
taxation,  had  lost  its  relevancy  by  reason  of  emancipation  as  decreed 
in  the  Thirteenth  Amendment.  The  question  now  before  Congress 
was  therefore  a  new  one.  It  affected  the  rights  of  States  and  the 
equality  of  citizens.  To  concede  four  and  a  half  millions  of  negroes 
to  the  basis  of  Southern  representation,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
confine  the  suffrage  to  the  whites,  was  not  merely  a  harsh  injustice 
to  the  colored  race,  but  it  was  an  insulting  discrimination  against 
Northern  white  men.  It  gave,  as  was  well  said  at  the  time,  a  far 
greater  influence  in  National  affairs  to  the  vote  of  the  Confederate 
soldier  in  the  South  than  to  the  vote  of  the  Union  soldier  in  the 
North.  In  Congressional  districts  where  the  colored  race  constituted 


312  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

one-half  of  the  total  population  (and  in  many  instances  the  propor- 
tion was  even  larger),  the  vote  of  one  white  man  offset  the  vote  of 
two  in  a  Northern  district  where  suffrage  was  impartial.  This  ratio 
of  influence  went  into  the  Electoral  College,  and  gave  to  the  white 
men  of  South  Carolina,  Mississippi  and  Louisiana  double  the  power 
of  that  enjoyed  by  white  men  in  New  York,  Illinois  and  California. 
The  loss  of  Representatives  to  the  Northern  States,  or  more  properly 
speaking  the  gain  to  the  Southern  States  on  existing  numbers,  would 
be  nearly  one-eighth  of  the  entire  House,  and  fully  one-quarter  of 
those  likely  to  occupy  seats  on  the  Democratic  side  of  the  chamber. 
In  the  Electoral  College,  the  loss  to  the  North  and  the  gain  to  the 
South  would  be  in  nearly  the  same  ratio.  In  the  rapid  Increase  of 
the  negro  race  the  offensive  discrimination  against  the  North  would 
be  continually  enlarging  in  its  proportions.  The  corrective  provision 
in  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  was  designed  to  prevent  this  grave 
injustice  both  to  the  negro  and  to  the  white  man  —  but  every  Demo- 
crat in  Congress  and  in  the  State  Legislatures  voted  against  it  through 
all  the  stages  of  its  enactment  and  its  ratification,  and  thereby  ex- 
pressed a  willingness  to  give  an  unfair  advantage  to  the  Southern 
white  man,  and  to  establish  an  unfair  discrimination  against  the 
Northern  white  man. 

Important  and  essential  as  are  the  provisions  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  just  cited,  indispensable  as  they  have  proved  in  the  sys- 
tem of  Southern  Reconstruction,  they  are  relatively  of  small  conse- 
quence when  compared  with  that  great  provision  which  is  for  all 
time  :  —  that  provision  which  establishes  American  citizenship  upon 
a  permanent  foundation,  which  gives  to  the  humblest  man  in  the 
Republic  ample  protection  against  any  abridgment  of  his  privileges 
and  immunities  by  State  law,  which  secures  to  him  and  his  descend- 
ants the  equal  protection  of  the  law  in  all  that  relates  to  his  life,  his 
liberty,  and  his  property.  The  first  section  of  the  Constitutional 
amendment  which  includes  these  invaluable  provisions  is  in  fact  a 
new  charter  of  liberty  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States ;  is  the 
utter  destruction  of  the  pestilent  heresy  of  State-rights,  which  con- 
stantly menaced  the  prosperity  and  even  the  existence  of  the  Re- 
public ;  and  is  the  formal  bestowment  of  Nationality  upon  the  wise 
Federal  system  which  was  the  outgrowth  of  our  successful  Revolution 
against  Great  Britain. 

Before  the  adoption  of  this  Amendment  citizenship  of  the  United 
States  was  inferred  from  citizenship  of  some  one  of  the  States,  for 


THE   BASIS  OF  CITIZENSHIP.  313 

there  was  nothing  in  the  Constitution  defining  or  even  implying 
National  citizenship  as  distinct  from  its  origination  in  or  derivation 
from  a  State.  It  was  declared  in  Article  IV,  Section  2,  of  the  Fed- 
eral Constitution,  that  "Citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to 
all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several  States ; " 
but  nothing  was  better  known  than  that  this  provision  was  a  dead 
letter  from  its  very  origin.  A  colored  man  who  was  a  citizen  of  a 
Northern  State  was  certain  to  be  placed  under  the  surveillance  of  the 
police  if  he  ventured  south  of  the  Potomac  or  the  Ohio,  destined  prob- 
ably to  be  sold  into  slavery  under  State  law,  or  permitted  as  a  special 
favor  to  return  at  once  to  his  home.  A  foreign-born  citizen,  with 
his  certificate  of  naturalization  in  his  possession,  had  prior  to  the 
war  no  guarantee  or  protection  against  any  form  of  discrimination 
or  indignity,  or  even  persecution,  to  which  State  law  might  subject 
him,  as  has  been  painfully  demonstrated  at  least  twice  in  our  history. 
But  this  rank  injustice  and  this  hurtful  inequality  were  removed  by 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  Its  opening  section  settled  all  conflicts 
and  contradictions  on  this  question  by  a  comprehensive  declaration 
which  defined  National  citizenship  and  gave  to  it  precedence  of 
the  citizenship  of  a  State.  "All  persons  born  or  naturalized  in  the 
United  States  and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof  are  citizens  of  the 
United  States  and  of  the  States  wherein  they  reside"  These  pregnant 
words  distinctly  reversed  the  origin  and  character  of  American  citi- 
zenship. Instead  of  a  man  being  a  citizen  of  the  United  States 
because  he  was  a  citizen  of  one  of  the  States,  he  was  now  made  a 
citizen  of  any  State  in  which  he  might  choose  to  reside,  because  he 
was  antecedently  a  citizen  of  the  United  States. 

The  consequences  that  flowed  from  this  radical  change  in  the 
basis  of  citizenship  were  numerous  and  weighty.  Nor  were  those 
consequences  left  subject  to  construction  or  speculation.  They  were 
incorporated  in  the  same  section  of  the  Amendment.  The  abuses 
which  were  formerly  heaped  on  the  citizens  of  one  State  by  the 
legislative  and  judicial  authority  of  another  State  were  rendered 
thenceforth  impossible.  The  language  of  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment is  authoritative  and  mandatory:  "No  State  shall  make  or  enforce 
any  law  which  shall  abridge  the  privileges  or  immunities  of  citizens  of 
the  United  States ;  nor  shall  any  State  deprive  any  person  of  life,  liberty 
or  property  without  due  process  of  law,  nor  deny  to  any  person  within 
its  jurisdiction  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws"  Under  the  force  of 
these  weighty  inhibitions,  the  citizen  of  foreign  birth  cannot  be  per- 


314  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

secuted  by  discriminating  statutes,  nor  can  the  citizen  of  dark  com- 
plexion be  deprived  of  a  single  privilege  or  immunity  which  belongs 
,to  the  white  man.  Nor  can  the  Catholic,  or  the  Protestant,  or  the 
Jew  be  placed  under  ban  or  subjected  to  any  deprivation  of  per- 
sonal or  religious  right.  The  provision  is  comprehensive  and  abso- 
lute, and  sweeps  away  at  once  every  form  of  oppression  and  every 
denial  of  justice.  It  abolishes  caste  and  enlarges  the  scope  of  hu- 
man freedom.  It  increases  the  power  of  the  Eepublic  to  do  equal 
and  exact  justice  to  all  its  citizens,  and  curtails  the  power  of  the 
States  to  shelter  the  wrong-doer  or  to  authorize  crime  by  a  statute. 
To  Congress  is  committed  the  authority  to  enforce  every  provision 
of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  and  the  humblest  man  who  is  denied 
the  equal  protection  of  the  laws  of  a  State  can  have  his  wrongs 
redressed  before  the  Supreme  Judiciary  of  the  Nation. 

It  is  perhaps  not  strange  that  the  Democrats  of  the  South  were 
hostile  to  the  great  results  wrought  for  freedom,  for  justice,  and  for 
popular  rights  by  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  Their  education, 
their  prejudices,  their  personal  interests  had  all  been  in  the  opposite 
direction,  and  it  was  doubtless  too  much  to  hope  that  all  these  would 
be  overcome  by  a  victory  for  the  Union  —  a  victory  which  carried  to 
their  minds  a  sense  of  personal  humiliation  and  of  remediless  ruin. 
If  their  course  was  unwise  it  is  not  altogether  unintelligible.  But 
the  action  of  the  Northern  Democrats  cannot  be  accounted  for  and 
cannot  be  excused.  They  stood  stubbornly,  solidly,  without  reason, 
without  justification,  against  a  great  enlargement  of  popular  rights. 
It  is  matter  of  wonder  that  a  political  organization  which  claims  Jef- 
ferson for  its  founder  and  Jackson  for  its  exemplar,  should  have  sur- 
rendered to  its  rival  the  sole  glory  of  an  achievement  which  may  well 
be  compared  with  that  increase  of  liberty  attained  by  our  ancestors, 
when  the  dependence  of  Colonies  was  exchanged  for  the  independ- 
ence of  States. 


Two  eminent  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  who  died  after  the 
close  of  the  war  are  entitled  to  the  admiration  and  gratitude  of  tho 
loyal  citizens  of  the  United  States.  When  Mr.  Lincoln  was  in- 
augurated there  were  three  judges  on  the  Supreme  Bench  from  the 
States  which  afterwards  formed  the  Confederacy,  —  James  M.  Wayne 
of  Georgia,  John  Catron  of  Tennessee,  and  John  A.  Campbell  of 
Alabama.  The  last-named  was  placed  upon  the  bench  in  1853,  and 


JUDGE  WAYNE  AND  JUDGE  CATRON.  315 

was  undoubtedly  the  choice  of  Jefferson  Davis,  who  as  the  leading 
Southern  member  of  President  Pierce's  Cabinet  exerted  large  influ- 
ence, if  not  absolute  control,  over  appointments  from  the  slave- 
holding  States.  The  personal  and  political  associations  of  Judge 
Campbell  led  him  to  resign  his  position  on  the  Supreme  Bench,  and 
to  give  the  weight  of  his  name  and  his  learning  to  the  Confederate 
cause. 

Judge  Wayne  was  appointed  by  President  Jackson  in  1835,  and 
Judge  Catron  by  President  Van  Buren  immediately  after  his  in- 
auguration in  1837,  under  a  bill  enlarging  the  Court,  which  had  been 
approved  by  General  Jackson.  Judge  Catron  had  long  been  a  fa- 
vorite of  General  Jackson  in  Tennessee,  and  it  was  understood  that 
in  appointing  him  to  the  Bench  Mr.  Van  Buren  was  carrying  out  the 
expressed  wishes  of  his  predecessor.  Both  judges  came  from  that 
earlier  and  better  school  of  Southern  Democracy  which  resisted  the 
injurious  heresies  of  State-rights  and  Nullification,  sustained  the  Force 
Bill  under  President  Jackson,  and  stood  loyally  by  the  Union  of  the 
States.  They  were  allied  to  the  South  by  birth,  by  education,  and 
by  the  associations  of  a  lifetime.  Their  friends,  their  kindred,  even 
members  of  their  own  families,  joined  in  the  Rebellion.  But  these 
patriotic  men,  one  of  whom  was  born  during  the  Revolutionary  war 
and  the  other  during  the  first  term  of  Washington's  Presidency, 
maintained  their  judicial  positions  and  were  unshaken  in  their  loy- 
alty to  the  Union.  Their  example  was  followed  by  few  officials  from 
the  States  that  seceded,  but  the  steadfastness  of  their  faith  was  a 
striking  illustration  of  the  difference  between  the  South  of  Jefferson 
and  Jackson  and  the  South  of  Calhoun  and  Davis.  They  sat  on  the 
Bench  throughout  the  entire  civil  struggle,  —  Judge  Catron  dying  in 
May,  1865,  in  the  eighty-seventh  year  of  his  age,  and  Judge  Wayne 
in  July,  1867,  in  his  seventy-eighth  year. 

The  conduct  of  these  venerable  judges  is  all  the  more  to  be  praised 
because  they  did  not  personally  sympathize  in  any  degree  with  the 
Republican  leaders.  They  did  not  believe  in  the  creed  or  the  policies 
of  the  party,  and  feared  the  result  of  its  administration  of  the  National 
Government.  Their  views  in  regard  to  the  Constitutional  rights  of 
the  slave-holders  were  the  same  as  those  held  by  the  Confederate 
chieftains.  They  had  both  concurred  with  Chief  Justice  Taney  in 
the  Dred  Scott  decision.  But  it  was  enough  for  them  now  to  know 
that  Mr.  Lincoln  had  been  Constitutionally  chosen  President  of  the 
tlnited  States,  and  had  been  Constitutionally  installed  in  his  great 


316  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

office.  It  was  not  for  them  as  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  to 
know  any  thing  of  his  Executive  acts,  except  as  they  might  properly 
come  for  review  before  their  high  tribunal.  They  illustrated  the 
honorable  line  of  duty  for  a  Judge  under  the  Government  of  the 
United  States.  Off  the  Bench,  his  right  to  political  opinions  is  no 
more  to  be  questioned  than  that  of  any  other  citizen.  On  the  Bench, 
he  falls  short  of  the  full  measure  of  his  exalted  duty  if  by  any  act 
or  any  expression  he  discloses  his  sympathy  with  one  political  party  or 
his  prejudice  against  another. 

It  is  a  tribute  of  honor  to  the  Supreme  Court  that  through  all  the 
mutations  of  its  existence  only  a  single  Justice  has  proved  unfaithful 
to  the  Union  of  the  States ;  and  prior  to  the  war  three-fifths  of  all  the 
Justices  were  appointed  from  the  South.  Southern  men  in  all  other 
departments  of  the  Public  Service  —  those  eminent  in  our  Congres- 
sional annals,  in  the  Army,  in  the  Navy,  in  the  field  of  Diplomacy, 
and  even  one  who  had  occupied  the  Presidential  chair  —  followed 
the  lead  of  their  States  in  rebellion  against  the  Union ;  or  rather  it 
may  with  truth  be  said,  they  led  their  States  into  rebellion  against 
the  Union.  Judge  Campbell,  in  furnishing  the  sole  exception  to  the 
record  of  judicial  loyalty,  did  not  yield  without  a  struggle.  He  was 
surrounded  with  peculiar  embarrassments,  and  was  not  strong  enough 
to  overcome  them.  He  realized  his  position,  and  did  what  he  could 
to  avert  war;  but  when  war  was  inevitable,  he  upheld  the  Con- 
federate cause  and  became  one  of  its  directing  minds.  In  contrast 
with  the  fall  from  his  high  estate  and  over  against  all  the  evil  influ- 
ences which  forced  Judge  Campbell  to  his  fate,  the  names  of  Catron 
and  Wayne  will  shine  in  history  as  examples  of  the  just  judge  and 
the  incorruptible  patriot. 


CHAPTER    XIII. 

GOVERNMENT  FINANCES  AFTER  THE  WAR.  —  DIFFICULTIES  OF  THE  SITUATION.  —  IN- 
TREPIDITY OF  CONGRESS.  — ITS  GREAT  TASK.  —  $600,000,000  BILL.  —  SUMMARY  OF 
PUBLIC  DEBT,  DECEMBER,  1865.  —  FUNDED  AND  FLOATING  OBLIGATIONS.  —  AGGREGATE 
DEBT  JANUARY  1,  1866,  $2,739,491,745.  —  $1,600,000,000  FLOATING  OBLIGATIONS.  — MR. 
McCuLLOCH's  ESTIMATES.  —  His  FINANCIAL  POLICY.  —  CONTRACTION  THE  LEADING 
FEATURE.  — WAYS  AND  MEANS  COMMITTEE  REPORT  A  FUNDING  BILL.  —  HOUSE  DE- 
BATE THEREON.  —  SENATE  DEBATE.  —  FINAL  PASSAGE.  —  REVENUE  LAWS  IN  CON- 
GRESS. —  CONTRASTED  WITH  BRITISH  PARLIAMENT.  —  LARGE  REDUCTION  OF  INTERNAL 
TAXES.  —  SECOND  REDUCTION  OF  INTERNAL  TAXES.  — CONTRACTION  POLICY  OPPRES- 
SIVE. —  INDIRECT  RELIEF.  —  HOSTILITY  RAPIDLY  INCREASES.  —  PROGRESS  OF  FUNDING 
BILL.  —  REPEAL  OF  CONTRACTION  BILL.  —  ITS  EVIL  EFFECTS.  —  FURTHER  REDUC- 
TION OF  INTERNAL  TAXES.  —  FINANCIAL  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  GOVERNMENT. 

—  LARGE  REDUCTION  OF  NATIONAL  DEBT.  —  VALUABLE  TREASURY  OFFICIALS.  — 
PURCHASE  OF  ALASX.V.  —  PRICE,  $7,200,000  IN  GOLD  COIN.  —  PURCHASE  AT  FIRST 
UNPOPULAR.  —  RESISTANCE  IN  THE  HOUSE.  —  MR.  WASHBURNE  AND  GENERAL  BUT- 
LER OPPOSE.  — TREATY  ABLY  SUSTAINED  BY  GENERAL  BANKS.  — INTERESTING  DE- 
BATE. —  MANY    PARTICIPANTS.* —  POWER   OF   THE   HOUSE   RESPECTING   TREATIES. 

—  CHRONIC  CONTROVERSY.  —  THE  BILL  PASSED.  —  OPINION  OF  JUDGE  MCLEAN.  —  OF 
MR.    JEFFERSON.  —  EXTENT   OF   ALASKA.  —  VALUE   OF    IT.  —  ITS    ELEMENTS   OF 
WEALTH.  —  FIRST   NORTHERN  TERRITORY  ACQUIRED   BY   THE  UNITED    STATES.  — 
NEGOTIATION  ABLY  CONDUCTED  BY  MR.  SEWARD. 

THE  financial  experience  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  in  the  years  following  the  war  is  without  precedent 
among  nations.  When  Congress  first  met  after  the  close  of  hostili- 
ties (December, '1865),  it  was  as  a  ship  sailing  into  dangerous  and 
unknown  seas  without  chart  of  possible  channels.  The  Reconstruc- 
tion problem  before  the  country  seemed  at  the  time  to  be  less  difficult 
than  the  financial  problem.  Other  nations  had  incurred  great  expen- 
ditures for  war  purposes,  but  had  always  left  them  in  chief  part  as  a 
heritage  for  the  future.  Great  Britain  will  probably  never  pay  the 
total  principal  of  her  public  debt.  France  will  be  burdened  perhaps 
as  long  as  her  nationality  endures  by  the  debts  heaped  upon  her 
through  the  ambition  of  her  sovereigns,  and  in  her  own  struggles  to 
enlarge  the  liberty  of  her  people.  But  in  this  country  the  purpose 
was  early  formed,  not  simply  to  provide  for  the  interest  upon  the 
debt  incurred  in  the  war  for  the  Union,  but  to  begin  its  payment  at 

317 


318  TWENTY  YEARS   OF  CONGRESS. 

once,  and  to  arrange  for  its  rapid  liquidation.  In  view  of  the  mag- 
nitude of  the  sum  involved  this  was  a  new  undertaking  in  the 
administration  of  Government  finances. 

The  difficulties  of  the  situation  were  undoubtedly  aggravated 
and  complicated  by  the  questions  which  arose  from  the  condition  of 
the  Southern  States.  Could  Congress  expect  at  once  that  the  popula- 
tion in  those  States  would  begin  to  contribute  to  the  revenue,  would 
cease  to  require  large  expenditures  for  the  maintenance  of  the  Na- 
tional authority,  would  again  add  to  the  volume  of  our  exports,  to 
our  commerce,  and  our  general  prosperity?  Serious  re-action  had 
in  other  lands  followed  the  financial  expansion  created  by  great  wars, 
even  without  complications  similar  to  those  which  the  disturbed  con- 
dition of  the  South  seemed  to  render  unavoidable.  Ought  Congress 
to  accept  such  a  re-action  as  the  necessary  condition  of  the  restoration 
of  our  currency,  of  return  to  a  normal  situation,  of  adjustment  of 
expenditure  to  revenue  on  a  peace  footing?  Could  the  possibility 
be  entertained  of  such  a  return  and  such  an  adjustment,  without 
panic,  without  paralysis  of  industry,  without  temporary  interrup- 
tion and  prostration  of  commerce  ?  Grave  apprehensions  were  felt 
as  to  the  possible  effect  upon  production  and  trade  of  the  legisla- 
tion required  to  maintain  the  National  credit.  These  apprehensions 
derived  force  and  peculiar  seriousness  from  the  growing  conflict 
between  President  Johnson  and  Congress  upon  measures  of  Recon- 
struction and  upon  removals  from  office. 

In  spite  however  of  all  suggested  fears  and  doubts,  a  feeling  of 
confidence  pervaded  the  country,  and  was  fully  shared  by  Congress, 
that  the  power  which  had  saved  the  Union  could  re-establish  its 
credit  without  panic  and  without  dangerous  and  prolonged  depres- 
sion. Faith  in  the  resources  which  had  equipped  and  supported  the 
National  armies,  now  embraced  the  plainer  and  less  exciting  duties  of 
funding  and  paying  the  debt  and  of  protecting  the  notes  of  the  United 
States.  The  loans  had  been  placed,  the  money  borrowed,  under  the 
excitement  of  war,  —  sometimes  under  the  pressure  of  defeat,  some- 
times in  the  exaltation  of  victory.  Without  this  pressure,  without 
this  exaltation,  could  money  be  secured  for  longer  time  at  lower 
interest,  could  taxes  be  continued  at  a  rate  adequate  to  build  up  a 
National  credit  worthy  to  be  compared  with  that  of  the  older  and 
richer  nations  beyond  the  Atlantic?  , 

The  intrepidity  with  which  Congress  met  its  task  will  always 
compel  the  admiration  of  the  student  of  American  history.  While 


GOLD  PREMIUM  IN  DECEMBER,   1865.  319 

the  war  lasted,  the  contributions  by  taxes  and  by  loans  had  been  on  a 
munificent  scale.  The  measures  adopted  at  the  close  of  the  Thirty- 
eighth  Congress,  after  four  years  of  desperate  struggle  and  on  the 
very  eve  of  National  victory,  showed  as  great  readiness  to  make 
sacrifices,  as  little  disposition  to  count  the  cost  of  saving  the  Union, 
as  had  marked  previous  legislation.  Less  than  six  weeks  befo.  e  the 
surrender  of  Lee  the  internal  taxes  were  increased,  the  duties  on 
imports  were  adjusted  to  that  increase,  and  a  new  Loan  Bill  was 
enacted.  The  bill  provided  for  borrowing,  in  addition  to  the 
authority  given  by  previous  Acts,  any  sum  not  exceeding  $600,- 
000,000,  in  bonds,  or  treasury  notes  convertible  into  bonds,  at  six 
per  cent  interest  in  coin  or  seven  and  three-tenths  per  cent  interest 
in  currency.  This  provision  was  found  to  be  so  comprehensive  that 
it  not  only  provided  a  strong  instrumentality  for  meeting  the  im- 
mense demands  incident  to  the  disbanding  of  the  armies  and  the 
final  settlement  of  claims  connected  with  that  momentous  change 
in  our  affairs,  but  also  laid  the  foundation  for  the  policy  of  funding 
the  debt  at  a  reduced  rate  of  interest.  These  results  testify  to  the 
magnificent  proportions  of  the  financial  legislation  during  the  period 
of  hostilities. 

When  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress  met  in  December,  1865,  gold 
stood  at  147|  (a)  148J.  A  month  later,  on  the  1st  of  January,  1866, 
the  legal-tender  notes  and  fractional  currency  amounted  to  $452,- 
231,810 ;  notes  bearing  7T<7  per  cent  interest,  to  $830,000,000  ;  com- 
pound-interest notes  payable  three  years  from  date  (a  considerable 
proportion  of  which  time  had  elapsed),  to  $188,549,041  ;  certificates 
of  indebtedness,  payable  at  various  dates  within  the  current  year,  to 
$50,667,000 ;  and  the  temporary  loan,  practically  payable  on  demand, 
had  reached  the  large  sum  of  $97,257,194.  These  might  all  be  called 
floating  and  pressing  obligations,  and  their  grand  aggregate  was 
$1,618,705,045.  At  the  same  time  the  amount  represented  by  bonds 
(6's  of  1861,  5-20's,  and  10-40's)  was  $1,120,786,700, —  showing  a 
total  National  debt  on  New-Year's  Day,  1866,  of  $2,739,491,745.  If 
the  National  credit  was  to  be  maintained  these  sixteen  hundred  mil- 
lions of  floating  obligations  must  be  promptly  placed  on  a  basis  that 
would  give  time  to  the  Government  to  provide  means  for  their  ulti- 
mate redemption.  President  Johnson,  in  his  message  at  the  opening 
of  the  session,  spoke  of  the  debt  not  as  a  public  blessing,  but  as  a 
heavy  burden  on  the  industry  of  the  country,  to  be  discharged 
without  unnecessary  delay.  This  was  the  popular  sentiment  in  all 


320  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

sections  of  the  country,  although  in  financial  circles  arguments  were 
frequently  heard  in  favor  of  creating  interminable  obligations  and  of 
adjusting  the  debt  on  a  basis  of  permanency,  after  the  European 
fashion.  The  reduction  had  indeed  already  begun,  since  the  maxi- 
mum of  debt  had  been  attained  in  the  preceding  August. 

T\e  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Mr.  Hugh  McCulloch,  estimated 
that  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  with  June,  1867  (for  which  Congress 
was  about  to  provide),  the  revenue  would  exceed  the  expenditures 
by  $111,682,818,  and  that  the  whole  of  our  vast  debt  could  be  liqui- 
dated by  annual  payments  within  thirty  years.  Mr.  McCulloch's 
plans  were  to  take  from  the  compound-interest  notes  their  legal- 
tender  quality,  from  the  date  of  their  maturity,  and  to  sell  six  per 
cent  bonds,  redeemable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  Government,  for  the 
purpose  of  retiring  both  the  compound-interest  notes  and  the  plain 
legal-tenders.  He  believed  that  the  entire  debt  might  be  funded  at 
five  per  cent,  while  the  average  of  the  annual  interest  now  stood  at 
6T6o2Q-  per  cent.  He  pointed  to  harmony  between  the  different  parts 
of  the  Union  and  to  the  settlement  of  the  relations  of  labor  in  the 
Southern  States,  as  essential  conditions  to  the  best  management  of 
the  National  obligations. 

The  leading  feature  of  Mr.  McCulloch's  financial  policy  was  the 
immediate  and  persistent  contraction  of  the  currency.  His  argu- 
ment in  support  of  this  policy,  as  given  in  his  annual  report,  was  not 
accepted  by  the  country  or  by  Congress  without  serious  reservation ; 
but  his  belief  in  the  theory  was  strong  and  determined,  and  so  far  as 
the  laws  permitted  he  went  on  reducing  the  volume  of  paper  in  cir- 
culation until  on  the  12th  of  April,  1866,  the  sum  of  legal-tenders 
was  brought  down  to  $421,907,103.  Financiers  of  the  Eastern  cities 
favored  the  policy  of  contraction,  although  the  logical  plea  was  urged 
against  them  that  the  country  would  grow  up  to  the  volume  of  cur- 
rency if  not  harried  and  disturbed  by  new  legislation.  Manufac- 
turers and  the  holders  of  their  products,  and  many  who  had 'incurred 
pecuniary  obligations  in  the  expanded  currency,  took  alarm  at  the 
rapidity  with  which  the  Treasury  notes  Avere  withdrawn.  The 
argument  was  urged  that  the  heavy  taxes  could  not  be  met  if 
the  withdrawal  were  so  rapid,  and  that  industry  and  trade  would 
in  consequence  be  paralyzed  by  the  enforced  fall  in  prices. 

These  opinions  and  apprehensions  were  developed  in  the  debates 
which  led  to  the  passage  of  the  Act  of  April  12,  1866.  The  subject 
was  first  introduced  by  Mr.  Alley  of  Massachusetts.  On  the  18th 


FUNDING  THE  PUBLIC  DEBT.  321 

of  December  (1865)  he  offered  a  resolution  concurring  in.  the  views  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  relation  to  the  necessity  for  a  con- 
traction of  the  currency,  with  a  view  to  as  early  a  resumption  of 
specie  payment  as  the  business  interests  of  the  country  would  per- 
mit. Under  a  suspension  of  the  rules,  without  debate,  144  voted  for 
the  resolution,  6  against  it,  and  32  were  not  recorded.  Two  months 
later,  on  the  21st  of  February,  1866,  Mr.  Morrill,  from  the  Commit- 
tee on  Ways  and  Means,  reported  a  bill  which,  as  he  explained,  would 
expand  the  authority  provided  by  the  Act  of  March  3,  1865,  for 
funding  interest-bearing  obligations,  so  as  to  include  non-interest- 
bearing  obligations.  The  measure  authorized  the  Secretary  to  ex- 
change the  bonds  prescribed  by  that  Act  for  notes  or  certificates,  and 
power  was  given  to  negotiate  them  and  make  them  payable  either  in 
the  United  States  or  elsewhere,  but  if  beyond  the  sea  at  not  over 
five  per  cent  interest. 

—  Mr.  Thaddeus  Stevens  declared  that  the  bill  put  over  sixteen  hun- 
dred millions  of  Government  paper  under  the  absolute  and  uncon- 
trolled  discretion   of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.     "This,  is   a 
tremendous  bill,"  said  he.     "  It  proposes  to  confer  more  power  upon 
Mr.  McCulloch  than  was  ever  before  conferred  upon  any  one  man  in 
a  government  claiming  to  have  a  constitution." 

—  Mr.  Hooper  of  Massachusetts   magnified   the   financial   achieve- 
ments of  the  Government,  urged  the  policy  embodied  in  the   bill, 
and  insisted  on  the  importance  of  restoring  the  currency  to  a  sound 
condition  at  the  earliest  practicable  moment.     He  controverted  the 
suggestion  which  had  been  made  to  increase  United-States  notes  to 
11,000,000,000,  on  the  ground  that  the  value  of  that  dollar  would  be 
constantly  fluctuating.     A  minority  of  the  commissioners  appointed 
by  the  preceding  Congress  to  inquire  into  the  state  of  trade  and  com- 
merce had  presented  a  specious  argument  in  favor  of  debasing  the 
coinage,  but  Mr.  Hooper  dismissed  the  proposition  summarily  and 
argued  strongly  for  a  contraction  of  legal-tender  notes. 

—  Mr.  Hulburd  of  New  York  maintained  that  taxation  could  not  be 
increased  to  meet  the  existing  and  maturing  obligations  of  the  Gov- 
ernment.    He  held  that  under  the  Acts  of  June,  1864,  and  March, 
1865,  the  Secretary  had  power  to  sell  at  home  or  abroad  six  per  cent 
coin  bonds  in  any  amount  to  meet  short  obligations  of  the  Govern- 
ment.    "Under  the  proposed  measure,"  he  said,  "authority  is  specifi- 
cally asked   to  withdraw  the   fractional  currency   and  legal-tender 
notes,  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  to  substitute  bonds  for  them.     The 

VOL.  II.  21 


322  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

like  power  was  never  asked  for  Neckar  or  for  Pitt.  As  a  principle 
the  proposition  is  dangerous."  He  protested  vigorously  against  mak- 
ing any  part  of  the  public  debt  payable  in  foreign  countries. 

—  Mr.  John  Wentworth  of  Illinois  argued  in  favor  of  contraction, 
maintaining  that  the  purpose  of  the  pending  bill  was  to  make  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  master  of  the  situation.     "  If  we  expect 
him  to  compete  successfully  with  the  most  desperate  body  of  men  in 
the  world  we  must  confer  upon  him  the  necessary  powers.     The  real 
question  is,  Shall  our  Government  pay  its  pensions  and  all  its  em- 
ployees  and   creditors  in  depreciated  paper,  when  by  borrowing  a 
little  money  at  six  per  cent  it  can  bring  its  paper  to   par?"     He 
charged  that  an  immense  lobby  against  the  bill  had  thronged  the 
hall,  and  was  surprised  to  find  importers  among  them.     "  But  the 
importers   have  found,"  said  he,  "that   a  bloated   currency  bloats 
the  fashions."     He  earnestly  indorsed  Mr  McCulloch  as  a  cautious 
man,  who  would  not  be  precipitate,  no  matter  what  power  might  be 
conferred  upon  him :  "  If  we  adopt  his  policy  we  shall  wake  up  some 
morning  and  find  the  paper  of  our  country  at  par." 

—  Mr.  Pike  of  Maine  doubted  the  necessity  of  enforced  contraction  ; 
but  if  contraction  was  necessary,  he  was  for  taxing  the  circulation 
of  national  banks  out  of  existence,  and  afterwards  retiring  green- 
backs.    "Once  upon  a  specie  basis,"  said  he,  "let  the  business  of  the 
country  regulate  itself."     He  proposed  also  to  allow  the  States  to 
tax  the  bonds  of  the  United  States. 

—  Mr.  Price  of  Iowa  asked :    "  Would   any  prudent   and   sensible 
business  man  who  had  given  his  note  payable  at  his  own  option, 
without  interest,  be  likely  to  give  for  it  another  note  for  the  same 
amount  payable  at  a  certain  time,  with  interest  at  six  per  cent  semi- 
annually,  in  gold  coin?  " 

—  Mr.  Scofield  of  Pennsylvania  asked  if  the  legal-tender  notes  were 
not,  upon  their  face,  payable  on  demand. 

—  Mr.  Allison  of  Iowa  insisted  that  "  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
does  not  propose  to  return  to  specie  payments  immediately,  but  he 
expresses  the  opinion  that  the  reduction  of  greenbacks  by  the  sum 
of  one  hundred  million  dollars  will  secure  that  result." 

—  Mr.  Boutwell  of  Massachusetts  was  content  to  try  the  experiment 
of  converting  the  interest-bearing  obligations  into  long  bonds,  but. 
was  unwilling  to  go  farther. 

—  Mr.  Sloan  of  Wisconsin  proposed  an  amendment  to  make  "  bonds 
and  all  other  obligations  of  the  United  States  hereafter  issued  pay- 
able in  lawful  money,"  but  the  suggestion  met  with  no  favor. 


DEBATE  ON  FUNDING  BILL.  323 

—  Mr.  Roscoe   Conkling   maintained  that   "in  the  first   place,  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  has  now  the  power,  under  the  Act  of 
March  3,  1865,  to  exchange  any  securities  of  the  Government  which 
bear  interest  for  any  other  securities  which  bear  interest.     In  the 
second  place,  he  has  the  power  to  call  in,  to  cancel,  to  annihilate,  so 
that  it  shall  never  go  out  again,  every  particle  of  currency  issued 
prior  to  June  30,  1864 ;   and  the  truth  is,  that  substantially  if  not 
literally  the   whole   of  the   currency  was   issued  previous  to  that 
time."  ..."  Only  one  power,"  said  Mr.  Conkling,  "  remains  to  be 
conferred  upon  him ;  and  that  is,  the  power  to  put  his  bonds  upon 
the  market  when  he  pleases,  where  he  pleases,  as  he  pleases,  sell 
them  for  money,  and  with  that  money  purchase  the   outstanding 
obligations  of  the  Government." 

—  Mr.  Garfield  argued  that  "  under  existing  law,  the  Secretary  can 
issue  compound-interest  notes  and  7-30  bonds  to  meet  current  indebt- 
edness ;  but  these  are  the  most  expensive  forms  of  government  obli- 
gations, and  therefore  he  ought  not  to  use  the  power."     He  thought 
the  proposed  bill  was  necessary  in  the  interest  of  the  Government. 
He  would  "trust  the  Secretary  to  proceed  cautiously  in  the  path 
required  by  honor,  to  place  our  currency  on  a  sound  basis.  .  .  .  We 
have  travelled  one-third  of  the  way  since  Congress  met.     Gold  was 
then  148.    It  is  now  130.    Defeat  this  bill,  and  there  will  be  a  jubilee 
on  Wall  Street." 

—  Mr.  Lawrence  of  Ohio  opposed  the  bill,  and  presented  a  letter  from 
Mr.  Freeman  Clarke,  then  Comptroller  of  the  Currency,  saying,  "  We 
have  full  power  to  fund  every  dollar  of  the  floating  debt  without  any 
legislation,  and  with  no  occasion  for  making  any  loan  whatever." 

—  Mr.  Morrill  closed  debate  on  the  16th  of  March;   and  the  bill 
coming  to  a  vote,  was  defeated,  —  ayes  65 ;   noes  70.      But   on   a 
motion  to  reconsider,  it  was  again  brought  before  the  House  on  the 
19th  of  March,  and  after  brief  debate  was  recommitted.     When  it 
re-appeared,  four  days  later,  it  contained  a  proviso  "  that  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  shall  not  retire  more  than  ten  million  dollars  of  legal- 
tender  notes  in  the  first  six  months  after  the  passage  of  the  Act,  and 
not  more  than  four  million  dollars  a  month  afterwards ;  and  shall 
make  a  report  to  Congress  of  his  action  under  this  provision."     Mr. 
Morrill  submitted  a  letter  from  Mr.  McCulloch,  expressing  the  opin- 
ion that  "it  will  be  a  national  calamity  if  Congress  shall  fail  to 
grant  additional  powers  to  the  Secretary."      He   added,  that  "the 
apprehension  which  exists,  that  if  power  is  given  to  the  Secretary  to 


324  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

retire  legal-tender  notes  the  circulation  will  be  ruinously  contracted, 
is  without  any  special  foundation."  The  effect  of  the  discussion 
was  to  strengthen  the  bill  in  the  House  where  it  was  passed  by  ayes 
83 ;  noes  53. 

The  bill  was  favorably  reported  to  the  Senate  from  the  Finance 
Committee,  and  came  up  for  consideration  on  the  9th  of  April,  under 
the  charge  of  Mr.  Fessenden. 

—  Mr.  Sherman  re-affirmed  the  objections  made  in  the  House,  that 
the  power  conferred  was  greater  than  had  ever  been  granted  to  any 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  since  the  foundation  of  the  Government. 
"  The  power,"  said  he,  "  is  absolute.     The  Secretary  may  sell  securi- 
ties of  any  form  at  any  time  and  fund  the  whole  debt.     No  present 
necessity  exists  for  such  grant  of  authority.     Thje  proviso  for  restrict- 
ing contraction  is  not  adequate  for  that  purpose.      By  retaining  a 
large  balance  in  the  Treasury,  the  Secretary  can  contract  the  currency 
without  violating  the  proviso"     He  deemed  it  unwise  "to  place  in 
the  hands  of  any  mortal  man  this  absolute  and  extreme  control  over 
the  currency." 

—  Mr.  Fessenden  said  the  true  principle  of  the  bill  was,  "that  as 
soon  as  it  can  be  done  with  safety,  Congress  means  that  we  shall  get 
back  to  the,  old  system  of  specie  payments.     That  is  about  all  there 
is  of  it.     The  effect  of  rejecting  the  measure  will  be  to  say  to  every- 
body that  the  Government  intends  to  keep  depreciated  paper  in  the 
financial  market." 

—  Mr.  Chandler  of  Michigan  believed  the  measure  "  to  be  evil,  and 
evil  only ;    containing  dangerous  powers  which  should  not  be  con- 
ferred, and  which  no  man  should  be  willing  to  accept."     Mr.  Howe 
of  Wisconsin  agreed  with  him. 

—  Mr.  Guthrie  of  Kentucky  (Secretary  of  the  Treasury  under  Presi- 
dent Pierce)  pronounced  it  "  necessary  and  proper  to  give  this  power 
to  the  Secretary."     And  Mr.  Morgan  of  New  York,  agreeing  with 
him,  declared  that  he  desired  the  bill  "just  as  it  is." 

—  An  amendment  to  strike  out  the  words  authorizing  the  sale  of  the 
bonds  elsewhere  than  in   the    United   States  was   overwhelmingly 
defeated,  —  ayes  7,  noes  35.     The  bill  was  then  passed  by  ayes  32, 
noes  7,  and  by  the  President's  signature  became  a  law  on  the  12th 
of  April,  1866. 

The  discussion  of  this  important  financial  measure  illustrates 
the  various  phases  of  opinion  prevailing  both  in  Congress  and  in  the 
country.  The  desire  to  return  to  a  specie  basis  was  general,  and  yet 


CHARACTER  OF  FUNDING  BILL.  325 

not  a  few  clung  to  the  legal-tender  notes  as  a  permanent  and  stand- 
ard currency.  While  the  argument  in  favor  of  contraction  was  pre- 
sented with  great  force,  the  possibility  of  going  too  fast,  even  in  the 
right  direction,  was  conceded  by  the  wisest  financiers.  The  natural 
disinclination  of  the  American  people  to  entrust  unrestricted  power 
to  any  officer  was  frequently  and  forcibly  expressed.  The  policy  of 
funding  the  obligations  bearing  interest  was  admitted  on  all  hands, 
and  for  this  purpose  the  sale  as  well  as  the  direct  exchange  of  bonds 
was  approved.  But  the  repugnance  to  accepting  less  than  par,  or 
allowing  the  possibility  of  such  a  rate,  had  its  origin  and  support 
in  the  patriotic  instincts  and  in  the  sound  judgment  of  the  people. 
The  requirement  of  a  report  from  the  Secretary  and  the  limitation 
of  the  extent  of  contraction,  were  the  essential  changes  which  made 
the  measure  acceptable. 

The  enactment  of  this  bill  presents  in  an  instructive  light  the 
character  of  our  financial  legislation  and  the  methods  by  which  it  is 
accomplished.  As  originally  presented  the  bill  had  the  approval  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  came  before  the  House  with  the 
favorable  report  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means.  Yet  it  had 
no  such  standing  as  in  the  British  Parliament  is  given  to  a  financial 
project  of  the  Government.  There,  such  a  proposition  would  be 
definitely  framed  at  the  Treasury,  and  its  details  would  be  elaborated 
when  first  presented.  The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  would  state 
the  full  character  of  the  measure  and  the  reasons  for  asking  its  adop- 
tion. Opposition  or  question  would  be  expected  only  from  the 
benches  of  the  rival  party.  Here,  on  the  other  hand,  after  the  House, 
using  its  own  judgment,  had  modified  the  bill,  criticism  and  hostility 
came  from  the  Treasury  that  had  originally  proposed  it.  Several 
prominent  members  of  the  dominant  party  were  pronounced  in  oppo- 
sition. Saved  by  parliamentary  strategy  when  once  defeated,  the  bill 
was  started  into  new  life  by  the  adoption  of  restrictions  upon  the 
power  and  the  action  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  These  re- 
strictions were  shown  to  be  necessary  in  the  progress  of  the  debate. 
Individual  judgment  asserted  itself  and  the  Act  became  the  harmoni- 
ous resultant  of  the  conflicting  opinions  of  the  entire  House. 

Congress  therefore  did  not  enact  anybody's  theory.  It  put  into 
the  statute  the  prudent,  cautious  sense  of  the  people.  Recognizing 
the  principle  of  funding  the  floating  obligations,  and  of  contraction 
as  a  means  to  resumption,  Congress  only  responded  to  the  common 
sense  of  its  great  constituency,  in  forbidding  reckless  haste,  and  in 


326  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

defining  the  rate  of  speed.  The  purpose  of  keeping  in  Congress  the 
control  of  the  rate  of  contraction  was  only  a  part  of  the  general  de- 
termination that  the  representatives  of  the  people  and  of  the  States 
shall  prescribe  the  methods  of  conduct  as  well  as  the  principles  and 
broad  measures  of  administration.  Every  Government  finds  by  prac- 
tice the  system  of  legislation  and  administration  best  adapted  to  its 
own  wants.  While  ministerial  power  and  a  trained  following,  such  as 
obtain  in  England,  may  possess  advantages  under  the  circumstances 
existing  in  the  British  Empire,  it  is  the  settled  judgment  of  this 
country  that  a  perfectly  free  discussion,  enlightened  but  not  restrained 
by  departmental  recommendation  or  by  dictation  of  committees,  is 
best  adapted  to  the  varied  and  conflicting  wants  of  the  whole  people. 
And  this  was  never  better  illustrated  than  in  the  financial  bill  whose 
important  provisions  have  been  under  consideration. 

The  revenue  laws  received  careful  attention  during  this  session. 
The  chief  measure  was  the  Act  of  July  13, 1866.  It  came  before  the 
House  with  the  assurance  from  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  that 
it  would  steadily  and  materially  reduce  internal  taxes.  The  system 
of  internal  revenue  which  had  been  so  elaborately  and  intelligently 
constructed  for  war  purposes,  }delded  1310,906,984  for  the  fiscal  year 
ending  June  30,  1866.  Reductions  were  now  made  in  the  taxes  on 
several  hundred  articles  of  manufacture,  on  savings  banks,  on  the 
gross  receipts  of  certain  corporations;  and  the  income  tax  was  in 
some  degree  mitigated.  The  total  reductions  were  estimated  at 
$75,684,000,  but  an  increase  was  proposed  on  raw  cotton  amounting 
to  nearly  one-third  of  this  sum.  Prolonged  discussion  arose  over 
this  tax  and  resulted  in  disagreement  between  the  two  Houses.  The 
bill  was  finally  perfected  in  a  conference  committee  and  ended  by 
reducing  the  total  internal  revenue  to  $265,920,474  per  annum  — 
with  all  allowance  made  for  the  growth  of  the  country  and  the 
elasticity  of  Government  receipts. 

Not  satisfied  with  the  large  reduction  of  taxes  made  at  the  first 
session  after  the  close  of  the  war,  Congress  resumed  the  subject  at 
the  second  session.  Early  in  February,  1867,  Mr.  Mori-ill,  from  the 
Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  reported  a  bill  for  the  further  reduc- 
tion of  taxes,  which  became  a  law  on  the  2d  of  March.  The  taxes 
removed  were  returning  a  yearly  revenue  of  more  than  $36,000,000 
to  the  National  Treasury.  The  principal  reductions  were  $19,500,- 
000  from  the  income  tax;  $4,000,000  from  clothing;  $3,500,000 
from  woolens;  $3,250,000  from  leather;  $1,000,000  from  engines; 


FURTHER  MEASURES  FOR  FUNDING.         327 

),000  from  sugar-refiners  ;  1600,000  from  tinware ;  $500,000  from 
castings ;  §500,000  from  doors,  sashes  and  blinds ;  with  many  others 
yielding  less  sums.  All  these  formed  a  part  of  what  were  termed  war 
taxes,  and  the  steady  purpose  of  Congress  was  to  remove  them  as 
rapidly  as  the  obligations  of  the  Treasury  would  permit.  As  matter 
of  fact  they  were  removed  long  before  such  action  was  expected  by 
the  people,  and  before  the  special  interests  subjected  to  the  burden 
had  time  to  petition  for  relief  or  even  to  complain  of  hardship. 

During  the  winter  of  1866-67  there  was  a  prolonged  discussion 
in  Congress  over  an  Act  finally  passed  March  2,  1867,  authorizing 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  exchange  three  per  cent  certificates 
of  indebtedness  for  compound-interest  notes,  and  allowing  these  cer- 
tificates to  be  counted  as  a  part  of  the  reserve  of  National  Banks. 
The  first  proposition  was  to  allow  interest  at  3^-  per  cent.  The 
exchange  of  notes  not  bearing  interest  for  those  bearing  compound 
interest  was  proposed  by  Mr.  Stevens,  and  at  first  supported  by  a 
majority,  but  on  reconsideration  it  was  defeated.  Objection  was 
made  to  the  bill  that  it  was  a  scheme  for  giving  to  the  banks  interest 
on  their  reserves,  which  they  could  not  otherwise  receive  when  the 
compound-interest  notes  should  be  retired.  Of  these  notes  the  banks 
held  $90,000,000  and  the  limit  proposed  for  the  certificates  was  $100,- 
000,000.  Congress  finally  limited  the  amount  of  certificates  to  $50,- 
000,000  at  three  per  cent,  and  allowed  them  to  stand  for  two-fifths  of 
the  reserve  of  any  bank. 

While  this  arrangement  was  an  obvious  advantage  to  the  National 
banks,  no  such  motive  inspired  Congress  in  passing  the  bill.  Quite 
another  object  was  aimed  at  in  its  enactment.  The  influence  of  con- 
traction, which  had  gone  into  operation  by  the  Act  of  the  preceding 
summer,  was  already  felt  in  the  business  of  the  country.  The  real 
significance  of  the  Act  just  passed  was  that  to  a  certain  degree  it 
checked  and  even  neutralized  the  operation  of  the  statute  which 
ordered  contraction.  The  compound-interest  notes  served  the  Na- 
tional banks  as  a  part  of  their  reserve,  and  as  rapidly  as  they  were 
cancelled,  legal-tender  notes  were  to  be  held  in  their  stead.  Their 
withdrawal  from  circulation  for  this  purpose  led  therefore  to  a  direct 
and  forcible  contraction  of  the  actual  currency  of  the  country.  By 
substituting  the  certificates  of  indebtedness  as  available  for  reserves 
this  contraction  was  prevented,  and  by  the  concession  of  interest, 
even  at  three  per  cent,  the  banks  were  induced  to  surrender  the 
securities  which  cost  the  Government  a  higher  rate.  The  limit  of 


328  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

these  certificates  was  subsequently  raised  to  175,000,000,  —  a  limit 
which  in  fact  was  often  reached,  —  but  as  legal-tenders  were  needed 
the  certificates  were  surrendered  to  the  Treasury. 

This  is  substantially  the  history  of  contraction,  or  of  attempts 
at  contraction  made  by  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress.  The  successful 
effort  to  parry  its  effect,  as  already  described,  shows  how  unwelcome 
it  had  proved  to  the  business  community,  and  how  Congress,  without 
resorting  at  once  to  an  absolute  repeal  of  the  act,  sought  an  indirect 
mode  of  neutralizing  its  effect.  Mr.  McCulloch,  in  trying  to  enforce 
the  policy  of  contraction,  represented  an  apparently  consistent  theory 
in  finance  ;  but  the  great  host  of  debtors  who  did  not  wish  their  obli- 
gations to  be  made  more  onerous,  and  the  great  host  of  creditors  who 
did  not  desire  that  their  debtors  should  be  embarrassed  and  possibly 
rendered  unable  to  liquidate,  united  on  the  practical  side  of  the 
question  and  aroused  public  opinion  against  the  course  of  the  Treas- 
ury Department.  An  individual,  by  an  effort  of  will,  can  bring  him- 
self to  endure  present  inconvenience  and  even  suffering,  for  a  great 
good  that  lies  beyond,  but  it  was  difficult  for  forty  millions  of  people 
to  adopt  this  resolve.  Nor  were  the  cases  quite  similar  in  motive 
and  influence,  for  although  it  might  be  admitted  that  the  entire  nation 
would  be  benefited  by  the  ultimate  result,  the  people  knew  that  the 
process  would  bring  embarrassment  to  vast  numbers  and  would  re- 
duce not  a  few  to  bankruptcy  and  ruin.  It  was  easy  to  see,  there- 
fore, that  as  each  month  the  degree  of  contraction  was  made  public, 
the  people  more  and  more  attributed  their  financial  troubles  to  its 
operation.  Perhaps,  in  large  degree,  this  was  the  result  of  imagina- 
tion, and  of  that  common  desire  in  human  nature  to  ascribe  one's 
faults  and  misfortunes  to  some  superior  power.  The  effect  neverthe- 
less was  serious  and  lasting.  In  the  end,  outside  of  banking  and 
financial  centres,  there  was  a  strong  and  persistent  demand  for  the 
repeal  of  the  Contraction  Act. 


The  process  of  funding  and  paying  the  National  debt,  and  of 
contracting  the  currency,  went  on  with  vigor  and  persistency  during 
the  summer  and  autumn  of  1867.  The  Treasury  statements  for  the 
year  showed  that  up  to  November  1,  1867,  the  long  obligations  of 
the  Government  had  been  increased  to  $1,781,462,050;  while  the  short 
obligations,  other  than  currency,  had  been  reduced  to  $441,655,120.63, 


THE  POLICY  OF  CONTRACTION.  329 

and  the  currency  in  greenbacks,  fractional  notes  and  certificates  of 
deposit  for  gold,  to  1402,385,677.39.  The  Treasury  held  $133,998,- 
398.02;  so  that  the  National  debt,  less  this  cash,  stood  at  $2,491,- 
504,450.  It  thus  exhibited  an  average  reduction  of  the  debt  from 
its  maximum,  August  31,  1865,  to  November  1,  1867,  of  more  than 
$10,000,000  per  month. 

Gold  was  lower  than  it  had  been,  but  great  disappointment  was 
felt  because  the  premium,  which  had  ranged  in  January,  1867,  at  32| 
(a)  37-J,  was  in  November  37  J  (a)  48|,  and  the  latter  figure  was  higher 
than  the  quotation  at  the  beginning  of  the  first  session  of  the  Thirty- 
ninth  Congress.  The  charge  was  current,  and  was  believed  by  many, 
that  the  premium  had  been  advanced  by  speculators  to  compel  Con- 
gress to  enforce  the  policy  of  contraction.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was 
declared  to  be  demonstrably  true  that  the  reduction  of  the  volume 
of  paper  did  not  lower  the  premium  on  gold.  It  only  depressed  pro- 
duction and  placed  the  markets  of  every  kind  under  the  control  of 
reckless  operators.  Surely,  it  was  argued,  the  contraction  had  been 
severe  enough  to  satisfy  the  advocates  of  the  most  stringent  Pro- 
crustean policy.  The  short  obligations  had  been  cut  down  nearly 
one-half  since  January,  1866.  If  account  were  taken  of  compound- 
interest  notes  the  reduction  in  currency  ought  to  be  reckoned  at 
$100,000,000,  and  even  at  twice  that  sum,  since  the  cash  held  by  the 
Treasury  had  been  taken  from  the  circulation  of  the  country. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  still  adhered  to  the  policy  of 
contraction,  and  yet  was  charged  with  putting  into  circulation  legal- 
tender  notes  that  had  been  once  withdrawn,  in  order  to  affect  the  mar- 
•ket.  Thus  in  August,  1866,  between  the  8th  and  the  22d  inclusive, 
he  had  withdrawn  and  destroyed  $12,530,111,  and  on  the  31st  of  that 
month  he  issued  $12,500,000.  He  had  again  in  October,  1866,  can- 
celled $500,000  on  the  24th,  and  issued  anew  the  same  sum  on  the 
25th.  On  the  31st  of  January,  1867,  he  had  issued  anew  $4,000,000, 
May  31  $2,500,000,  and  during  December,  1867,  $1,842,400.  In  an- 
swer to  remonstrance  against  this  practice  the  Secretary  maintained 
that  the  authority  to  contract  and  to  cancel  the  legal-tender  notes 
did  not  require  him  to  do  it,  but  left  it  within  his  discretion.  This 
was  unquestionably  the  law  of  the  case. 

Mr.  McCulloch  in  his  official  report  insisted  on  the  funding  or 
payment  of  the  balance  of  interest-bearing  notes,  and  upon  a  con- 
tinued contraction  of  the  currency,  as  the  first  measure  for  promoting 
the  National  prosperity ;  and  he  presented  a  strong  argument  in 


330  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

favor  of  permanent  specie  payment.  He  reported  that  he  had  not 
always  retired  notes  in  each  month  to  the  extent  permitted,  but  he 
declared  that  the  effect  of  the  policy  as  carried  out  had  been  salutary 
and  that  its  continuation  would  be  obviously  wise.  Yet  he  found 
that  financial  views  were  inculcated,  which  if  not  corrected  might 
lead  to  its  abandonment.  The  truth  was  that  the  Secretary's  policy 
was  counter  to  the  popular  wish,  and  evidence  was  accumulating  that 
Congress  would  not  sustain  him  in  its  continued  enforcement.  The 
Secretary  had  confidently  relied  upon  the  bankers  and  commercial 
men  of  the  country ;  but  the  serious  fact  was  now  developed,  that 
many  of  the  most  prudent  financiers  had  concluded  that  the  changes 
in  the  volume  of  the  currency  were  causing  mischief,  and  that  the 
process  of  contraction  had  been  carried  as  far  as  was  desirable. 

The  Secretary  argued  bravely  and  wisely  in  his  report,  in  favor 
of  paying  the  principal  and  interest  of  the  Government  bonds  in 
coin.  His  argument  was  designed  to  meet  heresies  which  had  found 
favor  in  unexpected  quarters.  The  plea  was  urged  by  the  new  and 
short-lived  school  of  finance  that  the  notes  of  the  National  banks 
should  be  withdrawn  and  greenbacks  substituted  for  them,  that  all 
payments  by  the  Government  on  the  principal  of  the  bonds  should 
be  in  its  own  paper.  It  was  admitted  by  these  novel  theorists  that 
the  bonds  on  their  face  promised  coin  for  interest ;  but  they  main- 
tained that  the  bonds  had  been  issued  in  large  part  when  gold  was  at 
a  heavy  premium  for  paper,  and  could  rightfully  be  liquidated  in  paper 
at  its  advanced  value.  Propositions  were  frequently  presented  to 
stop  the  issue  of  bonds  and  to  pay  out  notes  for  any  obligations  of 
the  Government  offered  at  the  Treasury  or  becoming  due  in  any. 
form.  The  pressure  of  rapid  contraction  secured  a  hearing  for  every 
extravagant  proposition.  Prejudice  against  speculators  in  gold,  who 
during  the  war  had  grown  rich  on  the  disasters  of  the  Union,  was 
added  to  the  discussion,  especially  while  the  premium  was  maintained 
and  the  National  credit  charged  with  odium  on  its  account. 

At  the  opening  of  the  second  session  of  the  Fortieth  Congress 
(December,  1867)  numerous  resolutions  and  bills  demanding  the 
stoppage  of  contraction  were  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Ways 
and  Means.  Five  days  afterwards  Mr.  Schenck  reported  a  bill  of 
four  lines,  by  which  the  "further  reduction  of  the  currency  by 
retiring  and  cancelling  United-States  notes  is  prohibited."  It  had 
the  unanimous  approval  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 
and  was  passed  by  the  House,  —  ayes  127,  noes  32.  The  minority 


PRESIDENT  JOHNSON'S  REPUDIATION  SCHEME.  331 

included  a  goodly  number  of  leading  Republicans.  In  the  Senate 
Mr.  Sherman,  in  supporting  the  bill,  stated  the  amount  of  contrac- 
tion since  August  1,  1866,  at  $140,122,168.  He  argued  from  these 
figures  that  "  contraction  should  go  no  farther  while  industry  is  in 
a  measure  paralyzed,  and  that  Congress  ought  to  resume  control  of 
the  currency,  which  should  not  be  delegated  to  any  single  officer." 
He  declared  that  the  measure  was  entirely  preliminary  to  other  legis- 
lation, "which  must  include  the  banking  system,  the  time  and  man- 
ner of  resuming  specie  payments,  the  payment  of  the  debt  and  the 
kind  of  money  in  which  it  may  be  paid,  and  the  reduction  of  expen- 
ditures and  taxes."  Debate  was  somewhat  prolonged,  and  a  con- 
ference committee  gave  final  form  to  the  measure,  which  failed  to 
receive  the  President's  signature,  but  became  a  law  without  it.  It 
is  known  as  the  "Act  of  February  4,  1868,  prohibiting  any  further 
reduction  of  the  currency,  and  authorizing  the  replacing  of  mutilated 
notes."  By  this  Act  the  minimum  limit  of  legal-tender  notes  was 
fixed  at  $356,000,000,  —the  volume  then  afloat  after  Mr.  McCulloch's 
policy  of  contraction  had  done  its  work. 

The  actual  legislation  of  the  second  session  of  the  Fortieth 
Congress  included  also  the  repeal  of  the  tax  on  raw  cotton,  and  the 
further  reduction  of  internal  revenue,  by  the  Acts  of  March  31  and 
July  20  (1868).  Great  relief  was  given  to  manufacturers  by  the 
abolition  of  the  five  per  cent  tax  on  a  variety  of  products.  The 
surrender  of  revenue  was  estimated  at  $23,000,000  on  cotton  and 
at  $45,000,000  on  manufactures.  These  concessions  were  much 
needed,  for  the  producers  of  cotton  were  crippled  by  the  condition 
of  their  States,  and  manufacturers  found  that  prices  did  not  justify 
the  payment  of  these  war  charges. 

In  his  annual  message  to  Congress  in  December,  1868,  President 
Johnson  argued  "that  the  holders  of  our  securities  have  already 
received  upon  their  bonds  a  larger  amount  than  their  original  invest- 
ments, measured  by  the  gold  standard.  Upon  this  statement  of  facts 
it  would  seem  but  just  and  equitable  that  the  six  per  cent  interest 
now  paid  by  the  Government  should  be  applied  to  the  reduction 
of  the  principal,  in  semi-annual  installments,  which  in  sixteen  years 
and  eight  months  would  liquidate  the  entire  National  debt."  This 
bold  and  shameless  advocacy  of  repudiation  was  less  mischievous 
than  it  would  have  been  if  Mr.  Johnson  had  held  a  longer  lease  of 
power,  and  if  the  people  had  not  in  the  Presidential  election  pro- 
nounced so  clear  and  positive  a  verdict  in  favor  of  the  maintenance 


332  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

of  the  National  credit.  The  Senate  deemed  it  worth  while  to  put  on 
record  a  resolution  condemning  this  part  of  Mr.  Johnson's  message. 
Mr.  Hendricks  of  Indiana  moved  a  substitute  indorsing  the  senti- 
ment in  the  message,  and  closing  with  the  words  of  the  Democratic 
National  Convention  in  favor  of  paying  the  bonds  in  lawful  money. 
Only  seven  senators  supported  his  substitute,  while  forty-four  opposed 
it ;  and  President  Johnson's  proposal  for  repudiation  was,  by  the  action 
of  the  Senate,  "  utterly  disapproved  and  condemned,"  —  ayes  43, 
noes  6.  In  the  House  of  Representatives  a  similar  resolution  was 
passed  by  a  vote  of  155  ayes  to  6  noes,  60  not  voting.  No  Demo- 
cratic member  in  that  body  seemed  willing  to  assume  the  objection- 
able position  taken  by  Mr.  Hendricks  in  the  Senate,  and  a  declaration 
"  that  all  forms  of  repudiation  are  odious  to  the  American  people  " 
was  adopted  without  a  division. 

The  financial  achievements  of  the  National  Government  herein 
reviewed,  for  the  four  years  following  the  war,  may  be  briefly  sum- 
marized. The  National  debt  was  reduced  by  the  sum  of  nearly 
$300,000,000,  while  at  the  same  time  the  Government  reduced  its 
revenue  to  the  amount  of  $140,000,000  per  annum  by  the  repeal  of  a 
long  series  of  internal  taxes.  During  this  period  more  than  $35,000,- 
000  had  been  paid  from  the  Treasury  towards  the  construction  of  the 
Union  and  Central  Pacific  Railroads,  and  $7,200,000  was  paid  to  the 
Russian  Government  on  account  of  the  purchase  of  the  Territory 
of  Alaska.  It  is  also  to  be  noted  that  within  this  period  were  em- 
braced all  the  expenses  incident  to  the  disbandment  of  the  Union 
army,  and  also  a  very  large  addition  to  the  pension-list.  Notwith- 
standing all  these  enormous  expenditures  the  business  interests  of 
the  country  continued  prosperous,  and  the  fact  that  so  large  a  reduc- 
tion had  been  made  in  internal  taxes  gave  promise  that  within  a 
comparatively  short  period  the  Government  would  be  able  to  remove 
all  levies  that  were  in  any  degree  oppressive  or  even  vexatious  to 
private  interests. 

By  reason  of  his  official  and  personal  connection  with  the  Presi- 
dent, Mr.  McCulloch  had  failed  to  secure  cordial  support  from 
Congress,  and  had  moreover  given  offense  by  his  obvious  sympathy 
with  the  free-traders,  who  were  already  beginning  to  assault  the 
protective  tariff  which  the  necessities  of  war  had  led  the  country  to 
adopt.  The  Secretary  had  also  gone  far  beyond  the  popular  wish 
and  the  best  business  judgment  of  the  country  in  regard  to  the  rapid 
contraction  of  the  currency.  But  while  his  politics  and  his  policies 


THE  PURCHASE  OF  ALASKA.  333 

were  not  acceptable  to  Congress -or  to  the  people,  he  is  entitled  to 
high  credit  for  his  direct,  honest,  intelligent  administration  of  the 
Treasury  Department.  In  the  peculiar  embarrassments  to  the  admin- 
istration of  the  Government,  caused  by  the  course  of  President  John- 
son, it  was  matter  of  sincere  congratulation  that  a  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  so  competent  and  trustworthy  as  Mr.  McCulloch  had 
approved  himself,  was  firmly  in  place  before  the  serious  political  dis- 
turbances began  —  a  congratulation  in  which  his  most  ardent  Repub- 
lican opponents  were  ready  to  join,  knowing  how  fatal  it  might  prove 
if  President  Johnson  had  the  opportunity  to  nominate  his  successor. 
Throughout  the  more  difficult  period  of  his  administration  of  the 
department,  Mr.  McCulloch  was  aided  by  two  most  intelligent  and 
efficient  officers.  Mr.  William  E.  Chandler,  though  only  twenty-nine 
years  of  age,  was  appointed  First  Assistant  Secretary  in  March,  1865, 
and  exhibited  great  aptitude,  discrimination,  and  ability  in  his  posi- 
tion. He  developed  an  admirable  talent  for  details,  a  quick  insight 
into  the  most  difficult  problems  that  came  before  the  Department, 
and  at  all  times  an  honorable  devotion  to  public  duty.  The  Bureau 
of  Internal  Revenue,  the  most  important  of  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment, was  under  the  direction  of  another  citizen  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, Edward  Ashton  Rollins.  The  Bureau  for  a  time  collected 
more  than  half  the  revenue  of  the  United  States,  and  required  in  its 
Commissioner  integrity,  administrative  talent,  and  singular  skill  in 
providing  against  every  form  of  fraud.  No  department  of  the  Gov- 
ernment had  to  contend  against  so  many  corrupt  combinations  to  rob 
the  Government,  and  the  slightest  relaxation  of  vigilance  on  the  part 
of  the  Commissioner  might  involve  at  any  time  a  loss  of  millions  to 
the  National  Treasury.  In  the  complex  and  difficult  duties  of  this 
station,  Mr.  Rollins  proved  himself  equal  to  every  requirement. 


The  purchase  of  Alaska  was  completed  by  the  Act  of  July  27, 
1868,  which  appropriated  the  amount  agreed  upon  in  the  treaty  of 
March  30,  1867, — negotiated  by  Mr.  Seward  on  behalf  of  the  United 
States,  and  by  Baron  Stoeckl  representing  the  Em-peror  of  all  the 
Russias.  The  Russian  Government  had  initiated  the  matter,  and 
desired  to  sell  much  more  earnestly  than  the  United  States  desired  to 
buy.  There  is  little  doubt  that  a  like  offer  from  any  other  European 
government  would  have  been  rejected.  The  pressure  of  our  financial 


334  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

troubles,  the  fact  that  gold  was  still  at  a  high  premium,  suggested 
the  absolute  necessity  of  economy  in  every  form  in  which  it  could 
be  exercised;  and  in  the  general  judgment  of  the  people  the  last 
thing  we  needed  was  additional  territory.  There  was,  however,  a 
feeling  of  marked  kindliness  towards  Russia ;  and  this,  no  doubt, 
had  great  weight  with  Mr.  Seward  when  he  assented  to  the  obvious 
wishes  of  that  government.  But  while  there  was  no  special  difficulty 
in  securing  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  by  the  Senate,  a  more  serious 
question  arose  when  the  House  was  asked  to  appropriate  the  necessary 
amount  to  fulfill  the  obligation.  Seven  million  two  hundred  thousand 
dollars  in  gold  represented  at  that  time  more  than  ten  million  dollars 
in  the  currency  of  the  Government;  and  many  Republicans  felt,  on 
the  eve,  or  rather  in  the  midst,  of  a  Presidential  canvass,  that  it  was 
a  hazardous  political  step  (deeply  in  debt  as  the  Government  was, 
and  with  its  paper  still  at  heavy  discount)  to  embark  in  the  specula- 
tion of  acquiring  a  vast  area  of  "rocks  and  ice,"  as  Alaska  was 
termed  in  the  popular  and  derisive  description  of  Mr.  Seward's 
purchase. 

When  the  bill  came  before  the  House,  General  Banks,  as  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  urged  the  appropriation 
with  great  earnestness,  not  merely  because  of  the  obligation  imposed 
upon  the  Government  by  the  treaty,  which  he  ably  presented ;  not 
merely  by  reason  of  the  intrinsic  value  of  the  territory,  which  he 
abundantly  demonstrated ;  but  especially  on  account  of  the  fact  that 
Russia  was  the  other  party  to  the  treaty,  and  had  for  nearly  a  century 
shown  a  most  cordial  disposition  towards  the  United  States.  Gen- 
eral Banks  maintained  that  at  every  step  of  our  history,  from  1780 
to  the  moment  when  he  was  speaking,  Russia  had  been  our  friend. 
"  In  the  darkest  hour  of  our  peril,"  said  he,  "  during  the  Rebellion, 
when  we  were  enacting  a  history  which  no  man  yet  thoroughly  com- 
prehends, when  France  and  England  were  contemplating  the  recog- 
nition of  the  Confederacy,  the  whole  world  was  thrilled  by  the 
appearance  in  San  Francisco  of  a  fleet  of  Russian  war  vessels,  and 
nearly  at  the  same  time,  whether  by  accident  or  design,  a  second 
Russian  fleet  appeared  in  the  harbor  of  New  York.  Who  knew  how 
many  more  there  were  on  their  voyage  here?  From  that  hour 
France,  on  the  one  hand,  and  England  on  the  other,  receded,  and 
the  American  Government  regained  its  position  and  its  power.  .  .  . 
Now,  shall  we  flout  the  Russian  Government  in  every  court  in 
Europe  for  her  friendship  ?  Whoever  of  the  representatives  of  the 


THE  PURCHASE  OF  ALASKA.  335 

American  people  in  this  House,  on  this  question,  turns  his  back,  not 
only  upon  his  duty,  but  upon  the  friends  of  his  country,  upon  the 
Constitution  of  his  Government,  and  the  honor  of  his  generation, 
cannot  long  remain  in  power." 

Mr.  Cadwalader  C.  Washburn  answered  the  speech  of  General 
Banks  on  the  succeeding  day  (July  1,  1868).  He  assumed  the  lead- 
ership of  the  opposition  to  the  treaty.  He  proposed  to  demonstrate 
to  the  satisfaction  of  the  House  five  distinct  propositions:  "First, 
that  at  the  time  the  treaty  for  Alaska  was  negotiated,  not  a  soul  in 
the  whole  United  States  asked  for  it;  second,  that  it  was  secretly 
negotiated,  and  in  a  manner  to  prevent  the  representatives  of  the 
people  from  being  heard ;  third,  that  by  existing  treaties  we  possess 
every  right  that  is  of  any  value  to  us,  without  the  responsibility  and 
never-ending  expense  of  governing  a  nation  of  savages ;  fourth,  that 
the  country  ceded  is  absolutely  without  value ;  fifth,  that  it  is  the 
right  and  duty  of  the  House  to  inquire  into  the  treaty,  and  to  vote 
or  not  vote  the  money,  according  to  its  best  judgment."  Mr.  Wash- 
burn  made  an  able  speech  in  support  of  his  radical  propositions. 

General  Butler  sustained  Mr.  Washburn 's  position  in  a  character- 
istic speech,  especially  answering  General  Banks's  argument  that  we 
should  pay  this  amount  from  a  spirit  of  friendship  for  Russia.  "  If," 
said  General  Butler,  "  we  are  to  pay  this  price  as  usury  on  the  friend- 
ship of  Russia,  we  are  paying  for  it  very  dear  indeed.  If  we  are  to 
pay  for  her  friendship,  I  desire  to  give  her  the  seven  million  two 
hundred  thousand  dollars  in  cash,  and  let  her  keep  Alaska,  because 
I  think  it  may  be  a  small  sum  to  give  for  the  friendship  if  we  could 
only  get  rid  of  the  land,  or  rather  the  ice,  which  we  are  to  get  by 
paying  for  it."  He  maintained  that  it  was  in  evidence  before  the 
House  officially,  "  that  for  ten  years  the  entire  product  of  the  whole 
country  of  Alaska  did  not  exceed  three  million  dollars." 

—  Mr.    Peters   of    Maine   pronounced    the    territory   "  intrinsically 
valueless;  the  conclusive  proof  of  which  is  found  in  the  fact  that 
Russia  is  willing  to  sell  it."     He  criticised  the  action  of  the  Senate 
in  negotiating  the  treaty.     "If  the  treaty-making  power  can  buy, 
they  can  sell.      If  they  can  buy  land  with  money,  they  can  buy 
money  with  land.     If  they  can  buy  a  part  of  a  country,  they  can 
buy  the  whole  of  a  country.    If  they  can  sell  a  part  of  our  country, 
they  can  sell  the  whole  of  it !  " 

—  Mr.  Spalding  of  Ohio,  on  the  other  hand,  maintained  that  "  not- 
withstanding all  the  sneers  that  have  been  cast  on  Alaska,  if  it  could 


336  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

be  sold  again,  individuals  would  take  it  off  our  hands  and  pay  us 
two  or  three  millions  for  the  bargain." 

—  General  Schenck  thought  the  purchase  in  itself  highly  objection- 
able, but  was  "willing  to  vote  the  money  because  the  treaty  has 
been  made  with  a  friendly  power ;  one  of  those  that  stood  by  us,  — 
almost  the  only  one  that  stood  by  us  when  all  the  rest  of  the  powers 
of  the  world  seemed  to  be  turning   away  from   us  in  our  recent 
troubles." 

—  Mr.  Stevens  supported  the  measure  on  the  ground  that  it  was  a 
valuable  acquisition  to  the  wealth  and  power  of  the   country.     He 
argued  also  in  favor  of  the  right  of  the  Senate  to  make  the  treaty. 

—  Mr.  Leonard  Myers  was  sure  that  if  we  did  not  acquire  Alaska  it 
would  be  transferred   to  Great   Britain.      "  The  nation,"  said  he, 
"which  struggled  so  hard  for  Vancouver  and  her  present  Pacific 
boundary,  and  which  still  insists  on  having  the  little  island  of  San 
Juan,  will  never  let  such  an  opportunity  slip.     Canada,  as  matters 
now  stand,  would  become  ours  some  day  could  her  people  learn  to  be 
Americans  ;  but  never,  if  England  secures  Alaska." 

—  Mr.  Higby  of    California   answered    the   objections   relating   to 
climate.     "I  do  not  know,"  said  he,  "whether  the  people  of  the  East 
yet  believe  what  has  been  so  often  declared,  that  our  winters  on  the 
Pacific  are  nearly  as  mild  as  our  summers,  and  yet  such  is  the  fact. 
In  my  own  little  village,  situated  over  fourteen  hundred  feet  above 
the  level  of  the  ocean,  I  have  seen  a  plant  growing  in  the  earth  green 
through  all  the  months  from  October  to  April." 

—  Mr.  Shellabarger  opposed  the  purchase.     He  said  those  nations 
which  had  been  compact  and  solid  had  been  the  most  enduring,  while 
those  which  had  the  most  extended  territory  lasted  the  least  space  of 
time. 

—  Mr.  Price  of  Iowa  thought  that  it  was  "  far  better  to  expend  the 
$7,200,000  in  improving  the  Mississippi  River,  in  order  that  bread- 
stuffs  may  be  transported  cheaply  from  the  West  to  the  seaboard."   He 
had  no  faith  in  the  value  of  the  territory  proposed  to  be  purchased. 

—  Mr.  McCarthy  of  New  York  rejected  the  plea  that  we  should 
purchase  Alaska  because  Russia  is  a  friendly  power.     "I  ask  this 
House,"  said  he,  "  whence  this  friendship  comes.    It  comes  from  self- 
interest.     She  is  the  absorbing  power  of  the  Eastern  continent,  and 
she  recognizes  us  as  the  absorbing  power  of  the  Western  continent ; 
and  through  friendship  for  us  she  desires  to  override  and  overbalance 
the  governments  of  Europe  which  are  between  her  and  us." 


THE  PURCHASE  OF  ALASKA.  337 

—  General  Butler  moved  a  proviso,  that  "  the  payment  of  $500,000 
of  said  appropriation  be  withheld  until  the  Imperial  Government  of 
Russia  shall  signify  its  willingness  to  refer  to  an  impartial  tribunal 
all  such  claims  by  American  citizens  against  the  Imperial  Govern- 
ment as  have  been  investigated  by  the   State  Department  of  the 
United  States  and  declared  to  be  just,  and  the  amounts  so  awarded 
to  be  paid  from  said  $500,000  so  withheld." 

—  General  Garfield,  presiding  at  the  time  over  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  ruled  it  out  of  order,  and  on  an  appeal  being  taken  the 
decision  was  sustained  by  ayes  93,  noes  27.     After  dilatory  motions 
and  the  offer  of  various  amendments,  which  were  rejected,  the  bill 
was  passed  by  ayes  113,  noes  43. 

—  The  House  prefaced  the  bill  by  a  preamble,  asserting  in  effect 
that  "  the  subjects  embraced  in  the  treaty  are  among  those  which  by 
the  Constitution  are  submitted  to  the  power  of  Congress,  and  over 
which  Congress  has  jurisdiction ;  and  for  these  reasons,  it  is  neces- 
sary that  the  consent  of  Congress  should  be  given  to  the  said  stipula- 
tions before  the  same  can  have  full  force  and  effect."     There  was  no 
mention  of  the  Senate's  ratification,  merely  a  reference  to  the  fact 
that  "  the  President  has  entered  into  a  treaty  with  the  Emperor  of 
Russia,  and  has  agreed  to  pay  him  the  sum  of  seven  million  two 
hundred  thousand  dollars  in  coin."     The  House  by  this  preamble 
evidently  claimed  that  its  consent  to  the  treaty  was  just  as  essential 
as  the  consent  of  the  Senate,  —  that  it  was,  in  short,  a  subject  for 
the  consideration  of  Congress. 

The  Senate  was  unwilling  to  admit  such  a  pretension,  especially 
when  put  forth  by  the  House  in  this  bald  form,  and  therefore 
rejected  it  unanimously.  The  matter  was  sent  to  a  conference,  and 
by  changing  the  preamble  a  compromise  was  promptly  effected,  which 
preserved  the  rank  and  dignity  of  both  branches.  It  declared  that 
"  whereas  the  President  had  entered  into  a  treaty  with  the  Emperor 
of  Russia,  and  the  Senate  thereafter  gave  its  advice  and  consent  to  said 
treaty,  .  .  .  and  whereas  said  stipulations  cannot  be  carried  into  full 
force  and  effect,  except  by  legislation  to  which  the  consent  of  both  Houses 
of  Congress  is  necessary  ;  therefore  be  it  enacted  that  there  be  appro- 
priated the  sum  of  $7,200,000  "  for  the  purpose  named.  With  this 
compromise  the  bill  was  readily  passed,  and  became  a  law  by  the 
President's  approval  July  27,  1868. 

The  preamble  finally  agreed  upon,  though  falling  far  short  of 
the  one  first  adopted  by  the  House,  was  yet  regarded  as  a  victory 
VOL.  II.  22 


338  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

for  that  branch.  The  issue  between  the  Senate  and  the  House,  now 
adjusted  by  a  compromise,  is  an  old  one,  agitated  at  different  periods 
ever  since  the  controversy  over  the  Jay  treaty  in  1794—95.  It  is 
simply  whether  the  House  is  bound  to  vote  for  an  appropriation  to 
carry  out  a  treaty  Constitutionally  made  by  the  President  and  the 
Senate,  without  judging  for  itself  whether,  on  the  merits  of  the  treaty, 
the  appropriation  should  be  made.  After  the  appropriation  required 
under  the  Jay  treaty  had  been  voted  by  the  House,  that  body  de- 
clared, in  a  resolution  which  was  adopted  by  ayes  57,  noes  35,  "  that 
it  is  the  Constitutional  right  and  duty  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, in  all  such  cases,  to  deliberate  on  the  expediency  or  inexpe- 
diency of  carrying  such  treaty  into  effect,  and  to  determine  and  act 
thereon  as  in  their  judgment  may  be  most  conducive  to  the  public 
good."  But  that  was  the  declaration  of  the  House  only;  whereas 
the  preamble  agreed  to  in  the  appropriation  of  money  for  the  pur- 
chase of  Alaska  contained  the  assent  of  both  branches. 

Though  the  Constitutional  principle  involved  may  not  be  con- 
sidered as  one  settled  beyond  a  fair  difference  of  opinion,  there  has 
undoubtedly  been  a  great  advance,  since  the  controversy  between  the 
two  branches  in  1794,  in  favor  of  the  rights  of  the  House  when  an 
appropriation  of  money  is  asked  to  carry  out  a  treaty.  The  change 
has  been  so  great  indeed  that  the  House  would  not  now  in  any 
case  consider  itself  under  a  Constitutional  obligation  to  appropriate 
money  in  support  of  a  treaty,  the  provisions  of  which  it  did  not 
approve.  It  is  therefore  practically  true  that  all  such  treaties  must 
pass  under  the  judgment  of  the  House  as  well  as  under  that  of  the 
Senate  and  the  President.  Judge  McLean  of  the  Supreme  Court 
delivered  an  opinion  which  is  often  referred  to  as  embodying  the 
doctrine  upon  which  the  House  rests  its  claim  of  power.1  "  A  treaty," 
said  the  learned  Justice,  "  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land  only  when 
the  treaty-making  power  can  carry  it  into  effect.  A  treaty  which 
stipulates  for  the  payment  of  money  undertakes  to  do  that  which  the 
treaty-making  power  cannot  do  ;  therefore  the  treaty  is  not  the  supreme  law 
of  the  land.  To  give  it  effect  the  action  of  Congress  is  necessary,  and 
in  this  action  the  representatives  and  senators  act  on  their  own  judg- 
ment and  responsibility  and  not  on  the  judgment  and  responsibility 
of  the  treaty-making  power.  A  foreign  government  may  be  presumed 
to  know  that  the  power  of  appropriating  money  belongs  to  Congress.  No 

1  Turner  vs.  The  American  Baptist  Missionary  Union,  5  McLean,  344. 


THE  PURCHASE  OF  ALASKA.  339 

*• 

act  of  any  part  of  the  Government  can  be  held  to  be  a  law  which 
has  not  all  the  sanctions  to  make  it  law." * 

The  important  transaction  was  not  closed  without  a  feeling  of 
resentment  in  Congress  against  Mr.  Seward,  because  of  his  going  so 
far  in  the  negotiation  without  reserving  any  judgment  for  other 
Departments  of  the  Government.  The  treaty  with  Russia  was 
absolute  in  its  terms.  There  was  no  qualifying  clause  making  its 
fulfillment  dependent  upon  the  appropriation  of  the  money  by 
Congress.  By  the  time  Congress  had  the  subject  under  considera- 
tion, Russia  had  removed  her  military  guard  and  surrendered  the 
territory  to  President  Johnson,  who  had  taken  formal  possession  of 
it  in  the  name  of  the  United  States.  Our  flag  was  hoisted  where 
that  of  Russia  had '  lately  floated.  It  was  no  doubt  Mr.  Seward's 
intention  by  this  course  to  render  a  withholding  of  the  purchase 
money  by  Congress  impossible,  and  it  must  be  confessed  that  the 
moral  coercion  was  skilfully  applied  and  was  found  to  be  irresistible. 
Mr.  Seward  did  not  consider  the  treaty  from  a  financial  point  of 
view.  He  knew  intuitively  that  the  territory  was  worth  more  to 
the  United  States  than  to  any  other  power ;  and  he  knew  that  at  the 
most  critical  point  in  our  civil  war,  the  outspoken  friendship  of 
Russia  had  been  worth  to  the  cause  of  the  American  Union  many 
times  over  the  amount  we  were  about  to  pay  for  Alaska. 


The  territory  which  we  thus  acquired  is  of  vast  extent,  exceeding 
in  its  entire  area  a  half  million  square  miles.  Its  extreme  length  is 
about  eleven  hundred  miles ;  its  extreme  width  about  eight  hundred. 
It  stretches  nearly  to  the  seventy-second  degree  of  north  latitude, 

1  Mr.  Jefferson,  more  promptly  than  other  great  statesmen  of  his  generation,  appre- 
ciated the  degree  of  power  residing  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  In  a  private  letter 
discussing  the  subject  he  expressed  views  in  harmony  with  Justice  McLean's  opinion, 
long  before  that  opinion  was  delivered.  He  wrote  to  Mr.  Monroe:  "We  conceive  the 
Constitutional  doctrine  to  be,  that  though  the  President  and  Senate  have  the  general 
power  of  making  treaties,  yet  whenever  they  include  in  a  treaty  matters  confided  by  the 
Constitution  to  the  three  branches  of  the  Legislature,  an  act  of  legislation  will  be  neces- 
sary to  confirm  these  articles,  and  that  the  House  of  Representatives,  as  one  branch  of 
the  Legislature,  are  perfectly  free  to  pass  the  act  or  to  refuse  it,  governing  themselves  by 
their  own  judgment  whether  it  is  for  the  good  of  their  constituents  to  let  the  treaty  go 
into  effect  or  not.  On  this  depends  whether  the  powers  of  legislation  shall  be  transferred 
from  the  President,  Senate,  and  House  of  Representatives,  to  the  President,  Senate,  and 
Piamingo,  or  any  other  Indian,  Algerine,  or  other  chief." 


340  TWENTY  YEARS  OF   CONGRESS. 

three  hundred  and  fifty  miles  beyond  Behring's  Straits ;  and  borders 
upon  the  Arctic  Ocean  for  more  than  a  thousand  miles.  The  adjacent 
islands  of  the  Aleutian  group  are  included  in  the  transfer,  and  reach 
two-thirds  of  the  way  across  the  North  Pacific  in  the  latitude  of  60°, 
—  the  westernmost  island  being  within  six  hundred  miles  of  the 
coast  of  Kamtchatka.  The  resources  of  the  forests  of  Alaska  are 
very  great,  —  the  trees  growing  to  a  good  height  on  the  mountain 
sides  as  far  as  two  thousand  feet  above  the  tide  level.  The  timber 
is  of  the  character  generally  found  in  Northern  climates:  yellow 
cedar  of  durable  quality,  spruce,  larch,  fir  of  great  size,  and  hemlock. 
In  the  world's  rapid  and  wasteful  consumption  of  wood,  the  forests 
of  Alaska  will  prove  not  merely  a  substantial  resource  for  the  interests 
of  the  future,  but  a  treasure-house  in  point  of  pecuniary  value.  To 
this  source  of  wealth  on  land  that  of  the  water  must  be  added,  in  the 
seal  and  food  fish  which  are  found  in  immeasurable  quantities  along 
the  coast  of  the  mainland  and  the  islands. 

From  the  time  of  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana  until  the  purchase 
of  Alaska,  the  additions  of  territory  to  the  United  States  had  all  been 
in  the  interest  of  slavery.  Louisiana,  stretching  across  the  entire 
country  from  South  to  North,  was  of  equal  value  to  each  section ; 
but  the  acquisition  of  Florida,  the  annexation  of  Texas,  the  territory 
acquired  from  Mexico  by  the  treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  with  the 
addition  of  Arizona  under  the  Gadsden  treaty,  were  all  made  under 
the  lead  of  Southern  statesmen  to  strengthen  the  political  power  and 
the  material  resources  of  the  South.  Meanwhile,  by  the  inexcusable 
errors  of  the  Democratic  party,  and  especially  of  Democratic  diplo- 
macy, we  lost  that  vast  tract  on  the  north  known  as  British  Columbia, 
the  possession  of  which,  after  the  acquisition  of  Alaska,  would  have 
given  to  the  United  States  the  continuous  frontage  on  the  Pacific 
Ocean  from  the  south,  line  of  California  to  Behring's  Straits.  Look- 
ing northward  for  territory,  instead  of  southward,  was  a  radical 
change  of  policy  in  the  conduct  of  the  Government,  —  a  policy 
which,  happily  and  appropriately,  it  was  the  good  fortune  of  Mr. 
Seward  to  initiate  under  impressive  and  significant  circumstances. 


CHAPTER    XIV. 

IMPEACHMENT  OF  PRESIDENT  JOHNSON.  —  FIRST  MOVEMENT  THERETO.— MR.  ASHLEY'S 
GRAVE  CHARGES.  —  GENERAL  GRANT'S  IMPORTANT  TESTIMONY.  —  JUDICIARY  COM- 
MITTEE DIVIDE.  —  IMPEACHMENT  DEFEATED,  DECEMBER,  1867  — ANALYSIS  OF  VOTE. 

—  SUSPENSION  OF  MR.  STANTON.  —  TENURE-OF-OFFICE  LAW.  —  SENATE  DISAPPROVES 
MR.  STANTON'S  SUSPENSION.  —  MR.  STANTON  RESTORED  AS  SECRETARY  OF  WAR. — 
AN  UNWELCOME  CABINET  OFFICER.  —  PREVIOUS  VIEWS  OF  LEADING  SENATORS.— 
PRESIDENT'S   ANOMALOUS    SITUATION.  —  HE   REMOVES   MR.  STANTON.  —  APPOINTS 
LORENZO  THOMAS  Ad  Interim.  —  SENATE  CONDEMNS  THE  PRESIDENT'S  COURSE.  —  IM- 
PEACHMENT MOVED  IN  THE  HOUSE.  —  EXCITING  DEBATE.  —  IMPEACHMENT  CARRIED. 

—  MANAGERS  APPOINTED. — ARTICLES  OF  IMPEACHMENT  PRESENTED  TO  THE  SEN- 
ATE.—  THOMAS  EWING  NOMINATED  FOR  SECRETARY  OF  WAR.  —  NOT  CONFIRMED. — 
COURT  OF  IMPEACHMENT.  —  THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE.  —  THE  PRESIDENT'S  COUNSEL.— 
JUDGE  CURTIS.  — MR.  EVARTS.  — MR.  GROESBECK.— THE  PRESIDENT'S  ANSWER.— 
GENERAL  BUTLER'S  ARGUMENT. — TESTIMONY  PRESENTED  BY  MANAGERS.  —  ARGU- 
MENT OF  JUDGE  CURTIS.— THE  PRESIDENT'S  WITNESSES.  —  REJECTION  OF  TESTI- 
MONY BY  SENATE.  —  TESTIMONY  CONCLUDED.  — ARGUMENT  OF  GENERAL  LOGAN.— 
OF  MR.   BOUTWELL.  — OF  MR.   NELSON.  — OF  MR.   GROESBECK.  —  OF  THADDEUS 
STEVENS.  — OF  THOMAS  WILLIAMS. —OF  MR.  EVARTS.  — OF  MR.  STANBERY.  — OF 
MR.  BINGHAM.  —  TWENTY-NINE  SENATORS  FILE  THEIR  OPINIONS.  —  FIRST  VOTE  ON 
LAST  ARTICLE.  —  GENERAL  INTEREST  AND  EXCITEMENT.  —  THE  RESULT.  —  ACQUIT- 
TAL OF  PRESIDENT. —  VIEWS  OF  REPUBLICANS.  —  CONDEMNATION  OF  CERTAIN  SENA- 
TORS.—SUBSEQUENT  CHANGE  OF  OPINION.  — THE  PRESIDENT  UNWISELY  IMPEACHED. 

—  ACTUAL  OFFENCES  OF  THE  PRESIDENT.  —  THEIR  GRAVITY.  —  IMPEACHED  ON  OTHER 
GROUNDS.  —  THE  REAL  TEST.  —  NATURE  OF  AN  IMPEACHABLE  OFFENSE.  —  LAWYERS 
DIFFER.— EFFECT  ON  MR.  STANTON.  — His  POLITICAL  ATTITUDE.  —  His  RESIGNA- 
TION. —  APPOINTED  SUPREME  JUSTICE.  — His  DEATH.  —  GENERAL  SCHOFIELD  SEC- 
RETARY OF  WAR.  — MR.  EVARTS  ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 

AS  the  result  of  the  great  victory  over  the  President  in  the 
political  contest  of  1866,  and  of  his  stubborn  maintenance  of 
a  hostile  attitude,  the  ardent  and  extreme  men  of  the  Republican 
party  began,  in  the  autumn  of  that  year,  to  discuss  the  propriety  of 
ending  the  whole  struggle  by  impeaching  Mr.  Johnson  and  removing 
him  from  office.  They  believed  that  his  contumacious  and  obstinate 
course  constituted  a  high  crime  and  misdemeanor,  and  the  idea  of 
Impeachment,  as  soon  as  suggested,  took  deep  root  in  minds  of  a 
certain  type.  When  Congress  came  together  in  December  the  agita- 
tion increased ;  and  on  the  7th  of  January  (1867),  directly  after  the 


342  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

holidays,  two  Missouri  representatives  (Loan  and  Kelso)  attempted 
in  turn  to  introduce  resolutions  in  the  House  proposing  an  Impeach- 
ment, but  each  was  prevented  by  some  parliamentary  obstruction.  At 
a  later  hour  of  the  same  day  Mr.  James  M.  Ashley  of  Ohio  rose  to  a 
question  of  privilege  and  formally  impeached  the  President  of  high 
crimes  and  misdemeanors.  "  I  charge  him,"  said  Mr.  Ashley,  "  with 
an  usurpation  of  power  and  violation  of  law:  in  that  he  has  cor- 
ruptly used  the  appointing  power ;  in  that  he  has  corruptly  used  the 
pardoning  power ;  in  that  he  has  corruptly  used  the  veto  power ;  in 
that  he  has  corruptly  disposed  of  the  public  property  of  the  United 
States  ;  in  that  he  has  corruptly  interfered  in  elections  and  committed 
acts  which  in  contemplation  of  the  Constitution  are  high  crimes  and 
misdemeanors." 

Mr.  Ashley's  charges  were  very  grave,  but  they  created  slight 
impression  upon  the  House  and  did  not  alarm  the  country.  Every 
one  present  felt  that  they  were  gross  exaggerations  and  distortions 
of  fact,  and  could  not  be  sustained  by  legal  evidence  or  indeed  by 
reputable  testimony  of  any  kind.  They  were  however  referred  in 
due  form  to  the  Judiciary  Committee,  with  full  power  to  send  for 
persons  and  papers,  to  administer  the  customary  oath  to  witnesses, 
and  to  make  in  all  respects  a  thorough  investigation.  Nothing  was 
heard  from  the  committee  until  the  2d  of  March,  when  on  the  eve 
of  the  expiration  of  Congress  they  reported  that  many  documents 
had  been  collected,  a  large  number  of  witnesses  examined,  and  every 
practicable  thing  done  to  reach  a  conclusion  of  the  case ;  but  that 
not  having  fully  examined  all  the  charges  preferred  against  the  Presi- 
dent, they  did  not  deem  it  expedient  to  submit  any  conclusion  be- 
yond the  statement  that  sufficient  testimony  had  been  brought  to  the 
committee's  notice  to  justify  and  demand  a  further  prosecution  of 
the  investigation.  They  therefore  passed  the  testimony  they  had 
taken  into  the  custody  of  the  Clerk  of  the  House,  as  a  notification  to 
the  succeeding  Congress  that  inquiry  into  the  matter  should  be  pur- 
sued. The  report  was  made  by  Mr.  James  F.  Wilson  of  Iowa, 
chairman  of  the  committee,  and  concurred  in  by  all  the  Republican 
members.  Mr.  Rogers,  a  Democratic  member  from  New  Jersey, 
made  a  minority  report,  stating  that  he  had  carefully  examined 
all  the  testimony  in  the  case;  that  there  was  not  one  particle  of 
evidence  to  sustain  any  of  the  charges  which  had  been  made ;  that 
the  case  was  entirely  void  of  proof ;  and  that  most  of  the  testimony 
taken  was  of  a  secondary  character,  such  as  could  not  be  admitted 


FIRST  RESOLUTION  OF  IMPEACHMENT.  343 

in  any  court  of  justice.  He  objected  to  continuing  the  subject  and 
thereby  keeping  the  country  in  a  feverish  state.  No  action  was 
taken  by  the  House  except  to  lay  both  reports  upon  the  table. 

There  was  on  the  part  of  conservative  Republicans  a  sincere  hope 
that  nothing  more  would  be  heard  of  the  Impeachment  question.  If 
a  committee  industriously  at  work  for  sixty  days  could  find  nothing 
on  which  to  found  charges  against  the  President,  they  thought  that 
wisdom  suggested  the  abandonment  of  the  investigation.  But  Mr. 
Ashley,  with  his  well-known  persistency,  was  determined  to  pursue  it ; 
and  on  the  7th  of  March,  the  third  day  after  the  new  Congress  was 
organized,  he  introduced  a  resolution  directing  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee to  continue  the  investigation  under  the  same  instructions  as 
in  the  preceding  Congress,  with  the  additional  power  to  sit  during 
the  recess.  Mr.  Ashley  expressed  the  hope  that  "  this  Congress  will 
not  hesitate  to  do  its  duty  because  the  timid  in  our  own  ranks  hesi- 
tate, but  will  proceed  to  the  discharge  of  the  high  and  important 
trust  imposed  upon  it,  uninfluenced  by  passion  and  unawed  by  fear." 
He  was  answered  with  indignation  by  Mr.  Brooks  and  Mr.  Fernando 
Wood  of  New  York,  and  the  question  becoming  a  party  issue  Mr. 
Ashley's  resolution  was  carried  without  a  division  after  an  ineffectual 
attempt  to  lay  it  on  the  table,  —  a  motion  which  was  sustained  by 
only  thirty-two  votes.  The  committee  proceeded  in  their  work 
during  the  recess  of  Congress,  and  reported  the  testimony  on  the 
25th  of  the  ensuing  November  (1867). 

Some  ninety-five  witnesses  had  been  examined,  and  the  report 
of  testimony  covered  twelve  hundred  octavo  pages.  Much  of  the 
evidence  seemed  irrelevant,  and  that  which  bore  directly  upon  the 
question  of  the  President's  offenses  fell  far  below  the  serious  char- 
acter assigned  to  it  by  previous  rumors.  This  was  especially  true 
in  regard  to  the  testimony  given  by  General  Grant.  There  were 
secret  and  ominous  intimations  that  General  Grant  had  been  ap- 
proached by  the  President  with  the  view  of  ascertaining  whether,  if 
it  should  be  determined  to  constitute  a  Congress  of  Democratic 
members  from  the  North  and  rebel  members  from  the  South  (leav- 
ing the  Republicans  to  come  in  or  stay  out  as  they  might  choose), 
the  Army  could  be  relied  upon  to  sustain  such  a  movement.  There 
is  no  doubt  that  many  earnest  Republicans  were  so  impressed  by 
the  perverse  course  of  President  Johnson  that  they  came  to  believe 
him  capable  of  any  atrocious  act.  They  gave  credulous  ear,  there- 
fore, to  these  extravagant  rumors ;  and  in  the  end  they  succeeded 


344  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

in  making  a  deep  impression  upon  the  minds  of  certain  members 
of  the  Committee  charged  with  the  investigation  into  the  President's 
official  conduct. 

The  persons  who  were  giving  currency  to  these  rumors  never 
seemed  to  realize  that  General  Grant,  with  his  loyalty,  his  patriot- 
ism, and  his  high  sense  of  personal  and  official  honor,  could  not 
for  a  moment  have  even  so  much  as  listened  to  a  proposition  which 
involved  an  attack  upon  the  legitimacy  of  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  and  practically  contemplated  its  overthrow  through 
means  not  different  from  those  by  which  Cromwell  closed  the  ses- 
sions of  the  Long  Parliament.  Nothing  can  be  more  certain  than 
the  fact  that  if  President  Johnson  had  ever  made  such  an  intima- 
tion to  General  Grant,  it  would  have  been  at  once  exposed  and 
denounced  with  a  soldier's  directness ;  and  the  President  would  have 
been  promptly  impeached  for  an  offense  in  which  his  guilt  would 
not  have  been  doubtful. 

It  was  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  by  General  Grant's  testi- 
mony *  the  entire  charge  was  dissipated  into  thin  air,  and  proved  to 

1  The  following  is  General  Grant's  testimony  in  full,  touching  the  point  referred  to. 
It  was  given  under  oath  before  the  Judiciary  Committee  on  the  18th  of  July,  1867. 

MR.  BOUTWELL:  "Have  you  at  any  time  heard  the  President  make  any  remark 
in  reference  to  admission  of  members  of  Congress  from  the  rebel  States  into  either 
House?" 

GENERAL  GRANT:  "I  cannot  say  positively  what  I  have  heard  him  say  on  the  sub- 
ject. I  have  heard  him  say  as  much,  perhaps,  in  his  published  speeches  last  summer,  as 
I  ever  heard  him  say  at  all  upon  that  subject.  I  have  heard  him  say— and  I  think  I 
have  heard  him  say  it  twice  in  his  speeches  —  that  if  the  North  carried  the  elections  by 
members  enough  to  give  them,  with  the  Southern  members,  a  majority,  why  would 
they  not  be  the  Congress  of  the  United  States?  I  have  heard  him  say  that  several 
times." 

MR.  THOMAS  WILLIAMS:  "When  you  say  'the  North,'  you  mean  the  Democratic 
party  of  the  North;  or,  in  other  words,  the  party  favoring  his  policy  ?  " 

GENERAL  GRANT:  "I  mean  if  the  North  carried  enough  members  in  favor  of  the 
admission  of  the  South.  I  did  not  hear  him  say  that  he  would  recognize  them  as  the 
Congress.  I  merely  heard  him  ask  the  question,  '  Why  would  they  not  be  the  Con- 
gress ? ' " 

MR.  JAMES  F.  WILSON:  "  When  did  you  hear  him  say  that  ?  " 

GENERAL  GRANT:  "  I  heard  him  say  that  in  one  or  two  of  his  speeches.  I  do  not 
recollect  where." 

MR.  BOUTWELL:  "  Have  you  heard  him  make  a  remark  kindred  to  that  else- 
where ?  " 

GENERAL  GRANT:  "Yes;  I  have  heard  him  say  that,  aside  from  his  speeches,  in 
conversation.  I  cannot  say  just  when:  it  was  probably  about  that  same  time." 

MR.  BOUTWELL:  "  Have  you  heard  him  at  any  time  make  any  remark  or  suggestion 
concerning  the  legality  of  Congress  with  the  Southern  members  excluded?" 

GENERAL  GRANT:  "He  alluded  to  that  subject  frequently  on  his  tour  to  Chicago 
and  back  last  summer.  His  speeches  were  generally  reported  with  considerable  accu- 


REPORT  OF  JUDICIARY  COMMITTEE.  345 

be  only  one  of  the  thousand  baseless  rumors  which  in  that  exciting 
period  were  constantly  filling  the  political  atmosphere.  It  was  per^ 
haps  the  intention  of  the  Committee  in  examining  General  Grant  on 
this  point,  to  give  him  an  opportunity  in  an  official  report  to  stamp 
the  current  rumors  as  utterly  false.  It  can  hardly  be  possible  that 
a  single  member  of  the  Committee  believed  that  General  Grant  had 
silently  received  from  the  President  a  deliberate  proposition  to 
revolutionize  the  Government.  When  the  essential  truth  of  the 
matter  was  reached,  it  was  found  that  General  Grant  had  never 
heard  any  thing  from  the  President,  on  the  question  of  organizing 
Congress,  at  all  different  from  the  premises  he  had  assumed  in  the 
series  of  disreputable  speeches  delivered  by  him  in  his  extraordinary 
tour  through  the  country  the  preceding  year. 

There  was  a  marked  divergence  of  views  in  the  recommendations 
from  the  Judiciary  Committee.  The  majority,  Messrs.  George  S. 
Boutwell  of  Massachusetts,  Francis  Thomas  of  Maryland,  Thomas 
Williams  of  Pennsylvania,  William  Lawrence  of  Ohio,  and  John 
C.  Churchill  of  New  York,  reported  a  resolution  directing  that 
"Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  be  impeached  of 
high  crimes  and  misdemeanors."  Mr.  Wilson  of  Iowa,  and  Mr. 
Frederic  Woodbridge  of  Vermont,  submitted  a  minority  report,  with 
a  resolution  directing  that  "  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  be  dis- 
charged from  the  further  consideration  of  the  proposed  Impeachment 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  that  the  subject  be  laid 
upon  the  table."  The  two  Democratic  members  of  the  committee, 
Mr.  Marshall  of  Illinois  and  Mr.  Eldridge  of  Wisconsin,  while  agree- 
ing with  the  resolution  submitted  by  Mr.  Wilson,  desired  to  express 
certain  views  from  the  Democratic  stand-point.  They  therefore  sub- 
mitted a  separate  report,  reviewing  the  entire  proceeding  in  language 
more  caustic  than  Mr.  Wilson  and  Mr.  Woodbridge  had  seen  fit  to 
employ. 

racy.  I  cannot  recollect  what  he  said,  except  in  general  terms;  but  I  read  his  speeches 
at  the  time,  and  they  were  reported  with  considerable  accuracy." 

MB.  BOUTWELL:  "  Did  you  hear  him  say  any  thing  in  private  on  that  subject,  either 
during  that  trip  or  at  any  other  time  ?  " 

GENERAL  GRANT:  "  I  do  not  recollect  specially." 

MR.  BOUTWELL:  "  Did  you  at  any  time  hear  him  make  any  remark  concerning  the 
Executive  Department  of  the  Government  ?  " 

GENERAL  GRANT:  "No:  I  never  heard  him  allude  to  that." 

MR.  BOUTWELL:  "  Did  you  ever  hear  him  make  any  remark  looking  to  any  contro- 
versy between  Congress  and  the  Executive  ?  " 

GENERAL  GRANT:  "I  think  not." 


346  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

The  effect  of  Mr,  Boutwell's  report  was  seriously  impaired  by  the 
fact  that  the  chairman  of  the  committee  and  another  Republican 
member  had  refused  to  concur,  and  it  was  at  once  evident  from 
the  position  in  which  this  division  left  the  question,  that  the  House 
would  not  sustain  an  Impeachment  upon  the  testimony  submitted. 
By  an  arrangement  to  which  only  a  few  members  objected,  the 
discussion  of  the  reports  was  confined  to  two  speeches,  one  by  Mr. 
Boutwell  and  one  by  Mr.  Wilson.  Mr.  Boutwell's  was  delivered  on 
the  5th  and  6th  of  December,  and  Mr.  Wilson's  reply  immediately 
after  Mr.  Boutwell  had  concluded  on  the  second  day.  Both  speeches 
were  able  and  positive,  holding  the  attention  of  members  in  a  marked 
and  exceptional  degree.  A  large  majority  of  the  House  desired  the 
vote  to  be  taken  as  soon  as  Mr.  Wilson  had  concluded ;  but  some 
dilatory  motions  kept  off  the  decision  until  the  succeeding  day  (De- 
cember 7,  1867),  when  amid  much  excitement,  and  some  display  of 
angry  feeling  between  members,  the  resolution  calling  for  the 
impeachment  of  the  President  was  defeated  by  an  overwhelming 
majority,  —  ayes  57,  noes  108.1  The  affirmative  vote  was  composed 
entirely  of  Republicans,  but  a  larger  number  of  Republicans  were 


1  The  following  is  the  vote  of  the  House,  in  detail,  on  the  first  Impeachment  reso- 
lution. Republicans  are  given  in  Roman  ;  Democrats  in  Italic  :  — 

AYES.  —Messrs.  Anderson,  Arnell,  James  M.  Ashley,  Boutwell,  Bromwell,  Broomall, 
Butler,  Churchill,  Reader  W.  Clarke,  Sidney  Clarke,  Cobb,  Coburn,  Covode,  Culloin, 
Donnelly,  Eckley,  Ela,  Farnsworth,  Gravely,  Harding,  Higby,  Hopkins,  Hunter,  Judd, 
Julian,  Kelley,  Kelsey,  William  Lawrence,  Loan,  Logan,  Loughridge,  Lynch,  Maynard, 
McClurg,  Mercur,  Mullins,  Myers,  Newcomb,  Nunn,  O'Neill,  Orth,  Paine,  Pile,  Price, 
Schenck,  Shanks,  Aaron  F.  Stevens,  Thaddeus  Stevens,  Stokes,  Thomas,  John  Trimble, 
Trowbridge,  Robert  T.  Van  Horn,  Ward,  Thomas  Williams,  William  Williams,  and 
Stephen  F.  Wilson  —  57. 

NOES.  — Messrs.  Adams,  Allison,  Ames,  Archer,  Delos  R.  Ashley,  Axtell,  Bailey, 
Baker,  Baldwin,  Banks,  Barnum,  Beaman,  Beck,  Benjamin,  Benton,  Bingham,  Blaine, 
Boyer,  Brooks,  Buckland,  Burr,  Cary,  Chanter,  Cook,  Dawes,  Dixon,  Dodge,-  Driggs, 
Eggleston,  Eldrid(/e,  Eliot,  Ferriss,  Ferry,  Fields,  Garfield,  Getz,  Glossbrenner,  Gotla- 
day,  Griswold,  Grover,  Haight,  Halsey,  Hamilton,  Hawkins,  Hill,  Holman,  Hooper, 
Hotchkiss,  Asahel  W.  Hubbard,  Chester  D.  Hubbard,  Richard  D.  Hubbard,  Hulburd, 
Humphrey,  Ingersoll,  Johnson,  Jones,  Kerr,  Ketcham,  Knott,  Koontz,  Laflin,  George 
V.  Lawrence,  Lincoln,  Marshall,  Marvin,  McCarthy,  McCullouah,  Miller,  Moorhead, 
Morgan,  Mnnaen,  Niblack,  Nicholson,  Perham,  Peters,  Phelps,  Pike,  Plants,  Poland, 
Polsley,  Pruyn,  Randall,  Robertson,  Robinson,  Ross,  Sawyer,  Sityreaves,  Smith,  Spald- 
ing,  Starkweather,  Stewart,  Stone,  Taber,  Taylor,  Upson,  Van  Aernam,  Van  Aucken, 
Van  Trump,  Van  Wyck,  Cadwalader  C.  Washburn,  Elihu  B.  Washburne,  Henry  D. 
Washburn,  William  B.  Washburn,  Welker,  James  F  Wilson,  John  T.  Wilson,  Wood- 
bridge,  and  Woodward  — 108. 

ABSENT  OR  NOT  VOTING. — Messrs.  Barnes,  Blair,  Cake,  Cornell,  Finney,  Fox,  Jenckes, 
Kitchen,  Mallory,  Moore,  Morrell,  Morrissey,  Pomeroy,  Raum,  Scolield,  Selye,  Shella- 
barger,  Taffe,  Twichell,  Burt  Van  Horn,  Windoin,  and  Wood  —  22. 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  VOTE.  347 

included  in  the  negative  ;  so  that  apart  from  any  action  of  the 
Democratic  party  the  advocates  of  Impeachment  were  in  the 
minority. 

By  this  decisive  vote  the  project  of  impeaching  the  President 
was  in  the  public  belief  finally  defeated.  But  those  best  acquainted 
with  the  earnestness  of  purpose  and  the  determination  of  the  lead- 
ing men,  who  had  persuaded  themselves  that  the  safety  of  the 
Republic  depended  upon  the  destruction  of  Johnson's  official  power, 
knew  that  the  closest  watch  would  be  kept  upon  every  action  of  the 
President,  and  if  an  apparently  justifying  cause  could  be  found  the 
project  of  his  removal  would  be  vigorously  renewed.  It  is  difficult 
to  understand  the  intensity  of  conviction  which  had  taken  possession 
of  certain  minds  on  this  subject  —  difficult  to  understand  why  the 
same  causes  and  the  same  reasons  which  operated  so  powerfully  on 
certain  Republicans  in  favor  of  Impeachment,  should  prove  so  utterly 
inadequate  to  affect  others.  Why  should  Mr.  Boutwell  be  so  de- 
cidedly on  one  side  and  Mr.  Dawes  with  equal  firmness  on  the  other  ? 
Why  should  General  Schenck  and  William  Lawrence  vote  for  Im- 
peachment and  General  Garfield  and  John  A.  Bingham  against  it? 
Why  should  Thaddeus  Stevens  and  Judge  Kelley  vote  in  the  affirma- 
tive and  the  four  Washburns  in  the  negative  ? 

Geographically  there  was  a  traceable  division  in  the  vote.  In 
New  England,  usually  so  radical,  only  five  members  favored  Impeach- 
ment. New  York  gave  but  two  votes  for  it  and  Pennsylvania  gave 
but  six.  The  large  majority  of  those  who  exhibited  such  an  earnest 
desire  to  force  the  issue  to  extremes  came  from  the  West,  but  even 
in  that  section  the  Republicans  who  opposed  it  were  nearly  equal 
in  number  to  those  who  favored  it.  The  vote  led  to  no  little  recrim- 
ination inside  the  ranks  of  the  party  —  each  side  regarding  the  other 
as  pursuing  an  unwise  and  unjustifiable  course.  The  advocates  of 
Impeachment  were  denounced  as  rash,  hot-headed,  sensational,  bent 
on  leading  the  party  into  an  indefensible  position ;  while  its  opponents 
were  spoken  of  as  faint-hearted,  as  truckling  to  the  Administration, 
as  afraid  to  strike  the  one  blow  imperatively  demanded  for  the  safety 
of  the  Republic.  But  outside  of  this  quarrel  of  partisans  the  great 
mass  of  quiet  citizens,  and  more  especially  the  manufacturing,  com- 
mercial, and  financial  communities,  were  profoundly  grateful  that  the 
country  was  not,  as  they  now  believed,  to  be  disturbed  by  a  violent 
effort  to  deprive  the  President  of  his  great  office. 


348  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

The  prophets  of  Peace  were  disappointed  in  their  hopes  and  their 
predictions.  A  train  of  circumstances,  not  unnaturally  growing  out 
of  the  political  situation,  led  in  the  ensuing  month  to  the  renewal 
of  the  scheme  of  Impeachment  because  of  the  President's  attempt  to 
appoint  a  new  Secretary  of  War.  The  President  himself  narrates 
what  he  had  done  to  secure  the  resignation  of  Mr.  Stanton :  "  I  had 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  time  had  arrived  when  it  was  proper 
for  Mr.  Stanton  to  retire  from  my  Cabinet.  The  mutual  confidence 
and  general  accord  which  should  exist  in  such  a  relation  had  ceased. 
I  supposed  that  Mr.  Stanton  was  well  advised  that  his  continuance 
in  the  Cabinet  was  contrary  to  my  wishes,  for  I  had  repeatedly 
given  him  to  so  understand  by  every  mode  short  of  an  express 
request  that  he  should  resign."  On  the  fifth  day  of  August  (1867) 
the  President  addressed  Mr.  Stanton  a  brief  note  in  these  words : 
"  Public  considerations  of  a  high  character  constrain  me  to  say  that 
your  resignation  as  Secretary  of  War  will  be  accepted."  Mr.  Stan- 
ton  replied  immediately,  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  the  letter  and 
adding:  "I  have  the  honor  to  say  that  public  considerations  of  a 
high  character,  which  alone  have  induced  me  to  continue  at  the  head 
of  this  Department,  constrain  me  not  to  resign  the  Secretaryship  of 
War  before  the  next  meeting  of  Congress." 

Not  acting  with  angry  haste,  but  reflecting  for  a  week  upon  the 
situation  resulting  from  Mr.  Stanton's  refusal  to  resign,  the  Pres- 
ident on  the  12th  of  August  suspended  him  from  the  Secretaryship 
of  War  under  the  power  conferred  by  the  Tenure-of-office  Act,  and 
added  in  a  note  to  him:  "You  will  at  once  transfer  to  General 
Ulysses  S.  Grant,  who  has  this  day  been  authorized  and  empowered 
to  act  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  all  records,  books,  papers  and 
other  public  property  now  in  your  custody  and  charge."  Mr. 
Stanton  replied  to  the  President:  "Under  a  sense  of  public  duty 
I  am  compelled  to  deny  your  right  under  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  the  United  States,  without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate  and  without  legal  cause,  to  suspend  me  from  the  office  of 
Secretary  of  War,  or  the  exercise  of  any  of  the  functions  pertaining 
to  the  same ;  but  inasmuch  as  the  General  commanding  the  armies 
of  the  United  States  has  been  appointed  ad  interim  and  has  notified 
me  that  he  has  accepted  the  appointment,  I  have  no  alternative  but 
to  submit,  under  protest,  to  superior  force."  It  is  evident  that 
General  Grant  and  his  legal  advisers  saw  no  force  in  Mr.  Stanton's 
denial  of  the  President's  power  to  suspend  him  from  office.  The 


RESTORATION  OF  SECRETARY  STANTOK  349 

General's  acceptance  of  the  Secretaryship  of  War  was  plain  proof 
that  he  recognized  the  President's  course  as  entirely  f  awful  and  Con- 
stitutional. General  Grant's  willingness  to  succeed  Mr.  Stanton 
was  displeasing  to  a  certain  class  of  Republicans,  who  thought  he 
was  thereby  strengthening  the  position  of  the  President ;  but  the 
judgment  of  the  more  considerate  was  that  as  Mr.  Johnson  had  de- 
termined in  any  event  to  remove  Stanton,  it  was  wise  in  General 
Grant  to  accept  the  trust  and  thus  prevent  it  from  falling  into  mis- 
chievous and  designing  hands. 

By  the  provisions  of  the  Tenure-of-office  Law  the  President  was 
under  obligation  to  communicate  the  suspension  to  the  Senate,  with 
his  reasons  therefor,  within  twenty  days  after  its  next  meeting.  He 
did  this  in  his  message  of  the  12th  of  December  (1867),  in  which 
he  reviewed  with  much  care  the  relations  between  himself  and  the 
Secretary  of  War.  He  certainly  exhibited  to  an  impartial  judge, 
uninfluenced  by  personal  or  party  motives,  strong  proof  of  the  utter 
impossibility  of  Mr.  Stanton  and  himself  working  together  harmo- 
niously in  the  administration  of  the  Government.  If  the  President 
of  the  United  States  has  the  right  to  Constitutional  advisers  who  are 
personally  agreeable  to  him  and  who  share  his  personal  confidence, 
then  surely  Mr.  Johnson  gave  unanswerable  proof  that  Mr.  Stanton 
should  not  remain  a  member  of  his  Cabinet.  But  the  Senate  was 
not  influenced  either  by  the  general  considerations  affecting  the 
case  or  by  the  special  reasons  submitted  by  the  President.  The 
question  was  not  finally  decided  by  the  Senate  until  the  13th  of 
January  (1868),  when  by  a  party  vote  it  was  declared  that  "having 
considered  the  evidence  and  reasons  given  by  the  President  in  his 
report  of  December  12, 1867,  for  the  suspension  of  Edwin  M.  Stanton 
from  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War,  the  Senate  does  not  concur  in 
such  suspension."  The  Secretary  of  the  Senate  was  instructed  to 
send  an  official  copy  of  the  resolution  to  the  President,  to  Mr.  Stan- 
ton,  and  to  General  Grant. 

Upon  receipt  of  the  resolution  of  the  Senate,  General  Grant  at 
once  locked  the  door  of  the  Secretary's  office,  handed  the  key  to  the 
Adjutant-General,  left  the  War-Department  building  and  resumed 
his  post  at  Army  Headquarters  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  street. 
Secretary  gtanton  SOon  after  took  possession  of  his  old  office,  as 
quietly  and  unceremoniously  as  if  he  had  left  it  but  an  hour  be- 
fore. Perhaps  with  some  desire  to  emphasize  the  change  of  situ- 
ation, he  dispatched  a  messenger  to  Headquarters  to  say  in  the 


350  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

phrase  of  the  ranking  position  that  "the  Secretary  desires  to  see 
General  Grant?"  General  Grant  did  not  like  the  way  in  which  Mr. 
Stanton  resumed  control  of  the  War  Office.  He  did  not  think 
that  he  had  been  treated  with  the  same  courtesy  which  he  had  shown 
to  Mr.  Stanton  when  he  succeeded  him  the  preceding  August.  In 
fact,  he  had  not  expected,  nor  did  he  desire,  the  restoration  of  Mr. 
Stanton,  and  but  for  differences  that  arose  between  him  and  the 
President  might  have  used  his  influence  against  Mr.  Stanton's  re- 
maining. He  had  indeed  warmly  seconded  a  suggestion  of  General 
Sherman  (who  was  then  in  Washington),  made  the  day  after  Mr. 
Stanton's  restoration,  that  the  President  should  immediately  nomi- 
nate Governor  Cox  of  Ohio  for  Secretary  of  War. 

The  President  did  not  accept  the  suggestion  respecting  the  name 
of  Governor  Cox.  His  chief  purpose  was  to  get  rid  of  Mr.  Stanton, 
and  he  did  not  believe  the  Senate  would  consent  in  any  event  to  his 
removal.  He  expressed  surprise  that  General  Grant  did  not  hold  the 
office  until  the  question  of  Mr.  Stanton's  Constitutional  right  to 
resume  it  could  be  judicially  tested.  A  heated  controversy  ensued 
a  fortnight  later  on  this  point,  leading  to  the  exchange  of  angry 
letters  between  the  President  and  General  Grant.  Mr.  Johnson 
alleged  that  the  fair  understanding  was  that  General  Grant  should, 
by  retaining  his  portfolio,  aid  in  bringing  the  case  before  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States.  General  Grant  denied  this  with  much 
warmth,  declaring  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the  President  that  the  lat 
ter  had  niade  "many  and  gross  misrepresentations  concerning  this 
subject."  It  was  doubtless  in  the  beginning  a  perfectly  honest  mis- 
apprehension between  the  two.  General  Grant  had  on  a  certain 
occasion  remarked  that  "  Mr.  Stanton  would  have  to  appeal  to  the 
courts  to  re-instate  him,"  and  the  President,  hastily  perhaps,  but  not 
unnaturally,  assumed  that  by  this  language  General  Grant  meant 
that  he  would  himself  aid  in  bringing  the  matter  to  judicial  arbit- 
rament. But  the  President  ought  to  have  seen  and  realized  that 
such  a  step  would  be  altogether  foreign  to  the  duty  of  the  Com- 
mander of  the  Army,  and  that  with  General  Grant's  habitual  pru- 
dence he  never  could  have  intended  to  provoke  a  controversy  with 
Congress,  and  get  himself  entangled  in  the  meshes  of  the  Tenure- 
of-office  Law.  The  wrath  of  both  men  was  fully  aroused,  and  the 
controversy  closed  by  leaving  them  enemies  for  life  —  unreconciled, 
irreconcilable. 

The  severance  of  friendly  relations  between  the  President  and 


PRESIDENT  JOHNSON  AND  GENERAL  GRANT.  351 

General  Grant  was  not  distasteful  to  the  Republicans  of  the  country. 
Indeed  it  had  been  earnestly  desired  by  them.  Many  of  those  who 
were  looking  forward  to  General  Grant's  nomination  as  the  Republi- 
can candidate  for  the  Presidency  in  1868,  had  been  restless  lest  he 
might  become  too  much  identified  with  the  President,  and  thus  be 
held  in  some  degree  accountable  for  his  policy.  General  Grant's 
report  on  the  condition  of  the  South  in  1865  had  displeased  Repub- 
licans as  much  as  it  had  pleased  the  President.  He  had  created  still 
further  uneasiness  in  Republican  ranks  by  accompanying  the  Presi- 
dent in  1866  on  his  famous  journey  to  Chicago,  when  he  "swung 
around  the  circle."  His  acceptance  of  the  War  Office  in  1867  as 
the  successor  to  Mr.  Stanton  was  naturally  interpreted  by  many  as  a 
signal  mark  of  confidence  in  the  President.  It  was  said  by  General 
Grant's  nearest  friends  that  in  his  position  as  the  Commander  of  the 
Army  he  was  bound  in  courtesy  to  comply  with  the  President's 
requests  ;  but  others  maintained  that  as  these  requests  all  lay  outside 
his  official  duties,  and  were  in  fact  political  in  their  nature,  he  might 
decline  to  respond  to  them  if  he  chose.  It  was  in  fact  known  to  a 
few  persons  that  General  Grant  had  declined  (though  requested  by 
the  President)  to  accompany  Minister  Lewis  D.  Campbell  to  Mexico 
and  hold  an  interview  with  the  officials  of  the  Juarez  Government,  in 
the  autumn  of  1866.  The  President,  however,  did  not  insist  on 
General  Grant's  compliance  with  his  request,  and  at  the  suggestion 
of  the  latter  readily  substituted  Lieutenant-General  Sherman,  who 
went  upon  the  mission,  with  results  —  according  to  his  own  narrative 
— more  laughable  than  valuable.  General  Grant  always  believed  that 
Mr.  Seward  had  originated  the  suggestion,  and  had  desired  him  to 
go  upon  the  mission  from  some  motives  of  his  own  not  made  fully 
apparent.  The  incident  did  not  interfere  with  the  kindly  relations 
between  the  President  and  General  Grant,  as  was  shown  by  General 
Grant's  acceptance  of  the  War  Office  ten  months  after  the  Mexican 
Mission  had  come  to  its  profitless  conclusion. 

From  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  it  is  not  difficult  therefore 
to  understand  why  the  quarrel  between  the  President  and  General 
Grant  should  be  viewed  with  substantial  satisfaction  by  the  Republi- 
cans of  the  country.  The  National  Convention  of  the  party  for  1868 
had  already  been  called,  and  it  might  be  awkward  for  its  members, 
while  denouncing  President  Johnson  in  the  platform,  to  be  reminded 
that  the  candidate  of  their  party  was  on  terms  of  personal  friendship 
with  him,  and  had  been  so  throughout  his  administration.  Such  a 


352  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

fact  would  embarrass  the  canvass  in  many  ways,  and  would  dull  the 
edge  of  partisan  weapons  already  forged  for  the  contest.  General 
Grant  as  a  Presidential  candidate  was  likely  to  draw  heavily  on  the 
Democratic  voters  of  the  Northern  States,  and  Republicans  felt 
assured  that  his  quarrel  with  Johnson  would  cause  no  loss  even  in 
that  direction.  In  every  point  of  view,  therefore,  the  political  situa- 
tion was  satisfactory  to  the  Republicans  —  the  last  possible  suggestion 
of  discontent  with  General  Grant's  expected  nomination  for  the  Presi- 
dency having  been  banished  from  the  ranks  of  the  party. 


By  the  Senate's  refusal  to  concur  in  the  suspension  of  Secretary 
Stanton,  a  confidential  adviser  under  the  Constitution  was  forced 
upon  the  President  against  his  earnest  and  repeated  protest.  This 
action  appears  the  more  extraordinary,  because  when  the  Tenure-of- 
office  Bill  was  pending  before  the  Senate,  the  expression  of  opinion 
on  the  part  of  the  majority  was  against  any  attempt  to  compel  the 
President  to  retain  an  unwelcome  adviser.  In  fact  the  Senate  voted 
by  a  large  majority  to  except  Cabinet  officers  from  the  operation  of 
the  law.  The  expressions  of  opinion  by  individual  senators  were 
very  pointed  on  this  question. 

—  Mr.  Edmunds  said  it  was  "right  and  just  that  the  Chief  Exec- 
utive of  the  Nation  in  selecting  these  named  Secretaries,  who,  by 
law  and  by  the  practice  of  the  country,  and  officers  analogous  to 
whom,  by  the  practice  of  all  other  countries,  are  the  confidential 
advisers  of  the  Executive  respecting  the  administration  of  all  his 
Departments,  should  be  persons  who  are  personally  agreeable  to  him 
and  in  whom  he  can  place  entire  confidence  and  reliance ;  and  when- 
ever it  should  seem  to  him  that  the  state  of  relations  between  him 
and  any  of  them  had  become  so  as  to  render  this  relation  of  confi- 
dence and  trust  and  personal  esteem  inharmonious,  he  should  in  such 
case  be  allowed  to  dispense  with  the  services  of  that  officer  in  vaca- 
tion and  have  some  other  person  act  in  his  stead." 

—  Mr.  Williams  of  Oregon  sustained  the  position  of  Mr.  Edmunds, 
but  added :  "  I  do  not  regard  the  exception  as  of  any  great  practical 
consequence,  because  I  suppose  if  the  President  and  any  head  of 
Department  should  disagree  so  as  to  make  their  relations  unpleas- 
ant, and  the   President   should   signify  a  desire  that  that  head  of 
Department  should  retire  from  the  Cabinet,  that  would  follow  with- 


PRESIDENT'S  RIGHT  OF  REMOVAL.  353 

out  any  positive  act  of  removal  on  the  part  of  the  President.  .  .  . 
It  has  seemed  to  me  that  if  we  revolutionize  the  practice  of  the 
Government  in  all  other  respects,  we  might  let  this  power  remain  in 
the  hands  of  the  President  of  the  United  States ;  that  we  should  not 
strip  him  of  this  power,  which  is  one  that  it  seems  to  me  is  necessary 
and  reasonable  that  he  should  exercise." 

—  Mr.  Fessenden  said :  "  A  man  who  is  the  head  of  a  Department 
naturally  wants  the  control  of  that  Department.     He  wants  to  con- 
trol all  his  subordinates.  ...  In  my  judgment,  in  order  to  the  good 
and  proper  administration  of  all  the  Departments,  it  is  necessary  that 
that  power  should  exist  in  the  head  of  it,  and  quite  as  necessary  that 
the  power  should  exist  in  the  President  with  reference  to  the  few 
men  who  are  placed  about  him  to  share  his  counsel  and  to  be  his 
friends  and  agents." 

—  Mr.  Sherman  said:  "If  a  Cabinet  officer  should  attempt  to  hold 
his  office  for  a  moment  beyond  the  time  when  he  retains  the  entire 
confidence  of  the  President,  I  would  not  vote  to  retain  him,  nor 
would  I  compel  the  President  to  have  about  him  in  these  high  posi- 
tions a  man  whom  he  did  not  entirely  trust  both  personally  and 
politically.     It  would  be  unwise  to  require  him  to  administer  the 
Government  without  agents  of   his  own  choosing.  .  .  .  And   if  I 
supposed  that  either  of  these  gentlemen  was  so  wanting  in  manhood, 
in  honor,  as  to  hold  his  place  after  the  politest  intimation  from  the 
President  of  the    United  States  that  his  services  were  no  longer 
needed,  I  certainly,  as  a  senator,  would  consent  to  his  removal  at 
any  time,  and  so  would  we  all." 

Still  more  significant  and  conclusive  was  the  action  of  both 
Senate  and  House  on  the  final  passage  of  the  Tenure-of-office  Act. 
That  action  was  based  upon  the  report  of  a  conference  committee, 
of  which  Mr.  Sherman  was  chairman  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  and 
General  Schenck  on  the  part  of  the  House.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  the  Senate  had  insisted  that  officers  of  the  Cabinet  should  be 
excepted  from  the  operation  of  the  Tenure-of-office  Act,  and  the 
House  had  insisted  that  they  should  not  be  excepted.  A  compro- 
mise was  made  by  the  conference  committee,  the  result  of  which  was 
thus  explained  to  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Sherman:  uln  this  case  the 
committee  of  conference  —  I  agreed  to  it,  I  confess,  with  some  reluc- 
tance —  came  to  the  conclusion  to  qualify  to  some  extent  the  power  of 
removal  over  a  Cabinet  minister.  We  provide  that  a  Cabinet  minister 
shall  hold  his  office,  not  for  a  fixed  term,  not  until  the  Senate  shall  con- 

VOL.  II.  23 


354  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

sent  to  his  removal,  but  as  long  as  the  power  that  appoints  him  holds  the 
office."  General  Schenck,  representing  the  original  House  amend- 
ment, said :  "  A  compromise  was  made,  by  which  a  further  amendment 
is  added  to  this  portion  of  the  bill,  so  that  the  term  of  office  of  the 
heads  of  Departments  shall  expire  with  the  term  of  the  President  who 
appointed  them,  allowing  these  heads  of  Departments  one  month 
longer."  These  were  the  well-considered  explanations  made  to  their 
respective  branches  by  the  chairmen  of  the  committees  that  com- 
posed the  conference.  It  was  upon  this  uncontradicted,  unqualified, 
universally  admitted  construction  of  the  Bill  that  the  House  and 
Senate  enacted  it  into  a  law. 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  if  the  Senate  had  consented  to 
the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton,  as  was  confidently  anticipated  from  the 
expressions  of  opinion  above  quoted,  no  new  Secretary  could  have 
been  installed  without  the  Senate's  explicit  consent,  and  that  mean- 
while the  War  Department  would  remain  under  the  control  of  Gen- 
eral Grant,  in  whose  prudent  and  upright  discharge  of  duty  every 
senator  had  perfect  confidence.  The  complaint  of  the  President's 
friends,  therefore,  was  that  senators,  while  perfectly  able  to  exclude 
from  the  control  of  the  War  Department  a  man  in  whom  they  had 
no  confidence,  demanded  that  the  President  should  retain  at  the 
head  of  that  Department  an  officer  in  whom  he  had  no  confidence. 
Hence  it  was  that  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  United 
States,  an  officer  distasteful  to  the  President  and  personally  distrusted 
and  disliked  by  him  was  forced  upon  him  as  one  of  his  confidential 
advisers  in  the  administration  of  the  Government.  In  the  prima 
facie  statement  of  this  case  the  Senate  was  in  the  wrong.  Upon 
the  record  of  its  votes  and  the  expression  of  opinion  by  its  own 
members,  the  Senate  was  in  the  wrong.  The  history  of  every  pre- 
ceding Administration  and  of  every  subsequent  Administration  of 
the  Federal  Government  proves  that  the  Senate  was  in  the  wrong. 

The  situation  in  which  the  President  was  left  by  this  action  was 
anomalous  and  embarrassing.  One  of  the  most  important  Depart- 
ments of  the  Government  —  especially  important  at  that  era  —  was 
left  under  the  control  of  a  man  with  whom  he  did  not  even  hold 
personal  relations.  If  this  could  be  done  in  one  Department  it 
could  with  equal  justice  be  done  in  all,  and  the  extraordinary  spec- 
tacle would  be  presented  of  each  Executive  Department  under  the 
contr.ol  of  an  officer,  who  in  matters  of  personal  feeling  and  in  public 
policy  was  deadly  hostile  to  the  President  of  the  United  States. 


REMOVAL  OF  SECRETARY  STANTON.  355 

Even  those  who  insisted  most  warmly  upon  Mr,  Stanton's  being 
retained  in  his  position,  must  have  seen  that  such  a  course  would 
contradict  the  theory  of  the  National  Constitution  and  be  in  direct 
contravention  of  the  practice  of  the  Federal  Government.  Every 
one  could  see  that  these  circumstances  had  brought  about  an  unnat- 
ural situation  —  a  situation  that  must  in  some  way  be  relieved.  It 
presented  a  condition  of  affairs  for  which  there  was  no  precedent, 
and  the  wisest  could  not  foresee  to  what  end  it  might  lead. 

The  issue  was  brought  to  a  head  by  the  President,  who  informed 
the  Senate  on  the  21^t  of  February  (1868),  that  in  the  exercise  of  the 
power  and  authority  vested  in  him  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  he  had  that  day  removed  Mr.  Stanton  from  office  and  desig- 
nated the  Adjutant-General  of  the  Army  —  Lorenzo  Thomas  —  as 
Secretary  of  War  ad  interim.  The  communication  was  received  with 
great  astonishment  by  the  Senate  and  with  loud  expressions  of  in- 
dignation against  the  President.  With  short  debate  and  with  little 
delay  the  Senate  passed  a  resolution  declaring  "that  under  the 
Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  the  President  has  no 
power  to  remove  the  Secretary  of  War  and  to  designate  any  other 
officer  to  perform  the  duties  of  that  office  ad  interim"  The  Senate 
could  do  nothing  more  than  express  and  record  this  opinion,  but  it 
did  that  promptly,  resentfully,  almost  passionately. 

The  House  took  up  the  matter  in  hot  temper  and  in  hot  haste. 
A  flagrant  offense  against  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  had,  in  the 
judgment  of  a  majority  of  its  members,  been  committed  by  the  Presi- 
dent. In  defiance  of  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  Tenure-of-office  Act 
he  had  removed  the  Secretary  of  War  from  office.  He  had  done 
this  under  circumstances  of  peculiar  aggravation,  because  the  Senate 
had  passed  upon  all  his  reasons  therefor  when  the  question  of  Mr. 
Stanton's  suspension  was  before  that  body ;  and  if  even  the  suspen- 
sion was  not  justifiable,  how  very  grave  must  be  the  offense  of  remov- 
ing the  Secretary  from  office !  These  views  and  the  discussion  to 
which  they  led  engrossed  the  attention  of  the  House  as  soon  as  it 
was  known  that  the  President  had  sent  a  message  to  the  Senate 
communicating  his  action  in  regard  to  Mr.  Stanton.  The  Senate 
had  no  sooner  recorded  its  dissent  from  the  Executive  power  of  re- 
moval than  Mr.  Covode  of  Pennsylvania,  on  the  same  day,  rose  to 
a  privileged  question  in  the  House  and  offered  a  resolution  that 
"  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  be  impeached  of  high 
crimes  and  misdemeanors"  The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Com- 


356  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

mittee  on  Reconstruction  and  the  House  adjourned.  On  the  next 
day  (February  22d)  Mr.  Stevens,  chairman  of  the  Reconstruction 
Committee,  reported  the  resolution  back  to  the  House  with  the  recom- 
mendation that  it  pass,  suggesting  that  the  question  might  immediately 
be  taken  without  debate. 

—  Mr.  Brooks  of  New  York  had  hoped  for  time  to  prepare  a  minority 
report,  but  contented  himself  with  a  long  speech  earnestly  protesting 
against  the  Impeachment.     "  Suppose,"  said  he,  "  you  succeed.    You 
settle  that  hereafter  a  party  having  a  sufficient  majority  in  the  House 
and  the  Senate  can  depose  the  President  of  the  United  States.     You 
establish  a  precedent  which  all  future  parties  in  all  time  to  come  will 
look  to.    The  curse  of  other  countries,  the  curse  of  France,  the  curse 
of  the  South-American  Republics,  has  been  that  they  followed  such 
a  precedent  as  you  call  upon  us  to  establish  here  to-day  —  the  over- 
throw of  their  Executive,  not  by  law,  not  by  the  Constitution,  but 
by  the  irregular  and  arbitrary  and  revolutionary  exercise  of  power, 
in  order  merely  to  obtain  a  temporary  possession  of  the  Govern- 
ment." 

—  Mr.  Spalding  of  Ohio  followed  Mr.  Brooks,  earnestly  supporting 
the  Impeachment.     There  seemed  to  be  an  inordinate  desire  among 
gentlemen  who  had  hitherto  been  conservative  on  the  question,  as 
well  as  among  those  who  had  been  constantly  in  favor  of  Impeach- 
ment, to  place  themselves  on  record  against  the  President. 

—  Mr.  John  A.  Bingham  said  that  "the  President  having  criminally 
violated  the  Constitution  and  the  laws,  I  propose  for  one  to'  put 
him  on  trial." 

—  Mr.  Farnsworth  of  Illinois  declared  that  "  no  student  of  our  Con- 
stitution, no  citizen,  can  doubt  that  Andrew  Johnson  has  been  guilty 
of  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  Constitution,  which  is  justly  impeach- 
able." 

—  Judge  Kelley  of  Pennsylvania  warned  "  those  who  have,  spoken 
on  the  other  side  to-day,  that  they  had  better  exercise  the  privilege 
of  revising  their  words,  and  that  it  will  be  well  for  others  to  pause 
before  they  speak  in  defense  of  the  great  criminal  whom  the  Ameri- 
can people  arraign  for  thousands  of  crimes." 

—  General  Logan,  answering   those  who  feared  that  Impeachment 
might  lead  to  some  form  of  revolution,  said  "  that  a  country  which  in 
time  of  war  and  excitement  can  stand  the  assassination  of  so  good 
and  just  a  President  as  Abraham  Lincoln,  can  and  will  stand  the 
Impeachment  of  as  bad  a  President  as  Andrew  Johnson." 


DEBATE  ON  IMPEACHMENT.  357 

—  Mr.  Ingersoll  of  Illinois,  in  the  course  of  his  remarks  sustaining 
Impeachment,  read  a  telegram  from  Governor  Oglesby,  declaring  his 
belief  "  that  the  people  of  Illinois  demand  the  Impeachment  of  An- 
drew Johnson,  and  will  heartily  sustain  such  action  by  our  Congress." 
Mr.  Ingersoll   declared   that   the   telegram   from   the  Governor  of 
Illinois  "  is  but  the  voice  of  the  people  of  the  whole  country  on  this 
question.     There  have  been  grave  doubts  with  regard  to  the  policy 
and  the  right  of  impeaching  the  President  upon  the  facts  as  pre- 
sented heretofore,  but  at  the  present  hour  I  know  of  no  man  who 
loves  his  country  more  than  party  who  will  not  pronounce  a  verdict 
against  the  President.     And,  sir,  I  shall  for  one  be  grievously  dis- 
appointed if,  within  ten  days  from  this  time,  honest  old  Ben  Wade 
(now   President   of   the   Senate)  is   not  President   of  the   United 
States." 

The  proceedings  were  carried  far  into  the  night,  and  their  deep 
seriousness  had  been  somewhat  relieved  by  an  amusing  effort  on  the 
part  of  several  Democratic  members  to  have  Washington's  Farewell 
Address  read  in  honor  of  the  day.  But  they  failed  to  accomplish  it, 
because  a  resolution  to  that  effect  could  not  take  precedence  of  the 
privileged  subject  which  was  holding  the  attention  of  the  House. 
At  a  late  hour  Mr.  Holman  of  Indiana,  unable  to  secure  the  reading 
of  the  address,  obtained  leave  to  print  it  in  connection  with  his 
remarks,  and  thus  left  in  the  columns  of  the  Globe  a  somewhat 
striking  contrast  —  on  the  one  hand,  the  calm  words  of  Washington 
counseling  peace  and  good  will  among  his  countrymen,  and  warning 
them  of  the  evils  of  party  spirit;  on  the  other,  the  exciting  and 
inflammatory  attempt  to  remove  one  of  Washington's  successors  from 
office  by  impeaching  him  of  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors. 

The  hours  of  the  intervening  Sunday  did  not  appease  the  temper 
or  cool  the  ardor  of  the  Republican  representatives,  now  so  evidently 
bent  on  impeaching  the  President.  The  House  had  adjourned  on 
Saturday  night  to  meet  at  ten  o'clock  Monday  morning,  with  the 
declared  intention  on  the  part  of  the  majority  to  force  the  resolution 
of  Impeachment  to  a  vote  on  that  day.  Mr.  Ashley  of  Ohio  opened 
the  debate  with  a  fierce  attack  upon  the  President,  and  was  followed 
by  Mr.  Burton  C.  Cook  of  Illinois  in  a  brief  but  pointed  legal  argu- 
ment to  prove  that  the  President  had  violated  the  letter  and  spirit 
of  the  law. 

—  Mr.  Julian  of  Indiana  made  a  somewhat  remarkable  speech.     "Is 
it  not  most  fortunate,"  said  he,  "  that  this  single  act  of  lawlessness 


358  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

has  been  evoked  which  so  beautifully  consolidates  into  a  unit  all  the 
friends  of  the  country  in  this  House  and  throughout  the  nation  ?  It 
is  true  the  removal  of  the  /Secretary  of  War  is  relatively  a  simple  matter. 
It  is  scarcely  a  peccadillo  when  considered  beside  the  New-Orleans 
massacre  and  many  other  of  the  wholesale  enormities  of  which  he 
has  been  known  to  be  guilty  for  many  months  past,  but  I  believe  it 
would  be  regarded  as  scarcely  sufficient  ground  for  this  proceeding  if  not 
considered  in  the  light  of  far  greater  previous  offenses." 

—  Mr.  James  F.  Wilson  of  Iowa  said:  "I  will  vote  for  the  pending 
resolution  to  the  end  that  the  law  may  be  vindicated  by  the  removal 
of  an  unworthy  public  servant  from  an  official  position,  which  he  has 
dishonored  by  his  perverse  disregard  of  duty  and  his  unjustifiable 
contempt  for  the  supremacy  of  the  law." 

—  General  Butler,  after  a  careful  recital  of  the  acts  of  the  Presi- 
dent, said :  "  For  a  tithe  "of  these  acts  of  usurpation,  lawlessness  and 
tyranny  our  fathers  dissolved  their  connection  with  the  government 
of  King  George ;   for  less  than  this  King  James  lost  his  throne,  and 
King  Charles  lost  his  head ;  while  we,  the  representatives  of  the  people, 
adjudge  only  that  there  is  probable  cause  shown  why  Andrew  John- 
son should  be  deprived  of  the  office  he  has  desecrated  and  the  power 
he   has  abused,  and  if  convicted  by  the  court  to  which  we  shall 
send  him,  be  forever  incapable  of  filling  that  office  —  the  ambition  to 
be  again  nominated  to  which  has  been  the  moving  spring  of  all  these 
crimes." 

—  Mr.  Washburne  of  Illinois  said :  "  In  my  judgment  the  safety  of 
the   country,  the   cause  of   good  government,  the  preservation   of 
Constitutional   right  and   public  liberty,  depend  upon  the   prompt 
impeachment  of  the  President  of  the  United  States." 

—  Mr.  Woodward  of  Pennsylvania,  a  bitter  anti-war  Democrat,  for- 
merly Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  his  State,  protested 
earnestly  against  Impeachment,  on  the  ground  that  all  the  States  not 
being  represented  either  in  House  or  Senate,  there  was  no  competent 
branch  to  impeach  and  none  to  try  an  officer.     "  If  I  were  the  Pres- 
ident's counselor,"  said  he,  "I  would  advise  him,  if  you  preferred 
Articles  of  Impeachment,  to  demur  to  your  jurisdiction  and  to  that 
of  the  Senate,  and  issue  a  proclamation  giving  you  and  all  the  world 
notice  that  while  he  held  himself  impeachable  for  misdemeanors  in 
office  before  the  Constitutional  tribunal,  he  never  would  subject  the 
office  he  holds  in  trust  to  the  irregular,  unconstitutional,  and  frag- 
mentary bodies  who  propose  to  strip  him  of  it." 


DEBATE  ON  IMPEACHMENT.  359 

—  Mr.  Boutwell  spoke  very  earnestly  and  ably  in  favor  of  Impeach- 
ment.    "  I  can  but  indicate,"  said  he,  "  the  plot  in  which  the  Pres- 
ident  is   engaged.     He   desires   first   to   get   control   of    the   War 
Department,  in  order  that,  as  in  1861,  the  munitions  of  war,  arms 
and  material   might  be  used  for  the  purpose  of   enabling  him   to 
succeed  in  his  aspirations  to  be  President  of  the  United  States.     He 
knew  that  if  he  could  corrupt  the  leaders  of  the  Army,  if  he  could 
bend  these  men  to  his  will,  these  ten  States  were  in  his  control,  and 
that  he  could  send  to  the  Democratic  Convention,  to  be  holden  on 
the  4th  of  July  next,  men  who  would  sustain  his  claim  for  the  Pres- 
idency.    Then,  upon  the  allegation  which  he  could  well  carry  out 
and  which  no  other  man  could  make  good,  that  with  the  Army  and 
his  influence  among  the  rebels  of  the  South,  whom  he  had  brought 
to  his  support  by  his  previous  violations  of  law,  he  could  secure  the 
electoral  votes  of  those  ten  States  by  excluding  the  negroes  whom 
we  have  enfranchised  from  all  participation  in  the  election.     Suc- 
ceeding in  this,  we  were  to  be  met  next  February  with  the  electoral 
votes  of  those  ten  States  given  for  himself  as  President  of  the  United 
States.     If  by  fortune,  as  was  his  hope,  he  should  receive  a  sufficient 
number  of  votes  in  the  North  to  make  a  majority,  then,  with  the 
support  of  the  Army  which  he  had  corrupted,  he  had  determined  to 
be  inaugurated  President  of  the  United  States  at  the  hazard  of  civil 
war.     To-day,  sir,  we  escape  from  these  evils  and  dangers." 

—  Mr.  Kerr  of  Indiana,  speaking  for  the  Democrats,  said :  "  I  and 
those  with  whom  I  act  in  this  House  had  no  knowledge  whatever  of 
the  purpose  of  the  Executive  to  do  the  act  for  which  the  movement 
is  again  inaugurated  for  his  deposition.     We  are  therefore  free  in 
every  sense  to  submit  to  the  guidance  alone  of  reason  and  duty." 

Late  in  the  afternoon  Mr.  Stevens  rose  to  close  the  debate.  He 
said :  "  In  order  to  sustain  Impeachment  under  our  Constitution  I  do 
not  hold  that  it  is  necessary  to  prove  a  crime  as  an  indictable  offense, 
or  any  act  malum  in  se.  I  agree  with  the  distinguished  gentleman 
from  Pennsylvania,  on  the  other  side  of  the  House  (Mr.  Woodward), 
who  holds  this  to  be  a  purely  political  proceeding.  It  is  needed  as  a 
remedy  for  malfeasance  in  office  and  to  prevent  the  continuance 
thereof.  Beyond  that  it  is  not  intended  as  a  punishment  for  past 
offenses  or  for  future  example."  He  made  one  of  his  peculiarly 
pungent  speeches,  which  for  some  unexplained  reason  was  scarcely 
less  bitter  on  General  Grant  than  upon  President  Johnson.  The 
whole  day's  proceedings  had  been  extraordinary.  Never  before  had 


360  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

so  many  members  addressed  the  House  on  a  single  day.  The 
speeches  actually  delivered  and  the  speeches  for  which  leave  to  print 
was  given,  fill  more  than  two  hundred  columns  of  the  Congressional 
Globe.  When  Mr.  Stevens  closed  the  debate,  many  members  who 
still  desired  to  be  heard  were  cut  off  by  the  previous  question. 

The  vote  on  the  resolution  impeaching  the  President  resulted  in 
ayes  126,  noes  47,  not  voting  17.1  Mr.  Stevens  immediately  offered 
a  resolution  directing  the  "  appointment  of  a  committee  of  two  mem- 
bers to  appear  at  the  bar  of  the  Senate,  and  in  the  name  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  and  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  to  impeach 
Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  of  high  crimes  and 
misdemeanors  in  office,  and  to  acquaint  the  Senate  that,  the  House 
will  in  due  time  exhibit  particular  Articles  of  Impeachment  against 
him  and  make  good  the  same,  and  that  the  committee  demand  that 
the  Senate  take  order  for  the  appearance  of  Andrew  Johnson  to 
answer  to  said  Impeachment."  Mr.  Stevens  further  moved  that 
"  a  committee  of  seven  be  appointed  to  prepare  and  report  Articles 
of  Impeachment  against  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United 
States,  with  power  to  send  for  persons  and  papers."  The  resolutions 


1  The  following  is  the  vote  of  the  House,  in  detail,  on  the  second  Impeachment  reso- 
lution, February  24, 1868.  Republicans  are  given  in  Roman;  Democrats  in  Italic:  — 

AYES.  —  Messrs.  Allison,  Ames,  Anderson,  Arnell,  Delos  R.  Ashley,  James  M. 
Ashley,  Bailey,  Baker,  Baldwin,  Banks,  Beaman,  Beatty,  Benton,  Bingham,  Elaine, 
Blair,  Boutwell,  Bromwell,  Broomall,  Buckland,  Butler,  Cake,  Churchill,  Reader  W. 
Clarke,  Sidney  Clarke,  Cobb,  Coburn,  Cook,  Cornell,  Covode,  Cullom,  Dawes,  Dodge, 
Driggs.  Eckley,  Eggleston,  Eliot,  Farnsworth,  Ferriss,  Ferry,  Fields,  Gravely,  Gris- 
wold,  Halsey,  Harding,  Higby,  Hill,  Hooper,  Hopkins,  Asahel  TV.  Hubbard,  Chester 
D.  Hubbard,  Hulburd,  Hunter,  Ingersoll,  Jenckes,  Judd,  Julian,  Kelley,  Kelsey, 
Ketcham,  Kitchen,  Laflin,  George  V.  Lawrence,  William  Lawrence,  Lincoln,  Loan, 
Logan,  Loughridge,  Lynch,  Mallory,  Marvin,  McCarthy,  McClurg,  Mercur,  Miller,  Moore, 
Moorhead,  Morrell,  Mullins,  Myers,  Newcombr  Nunn,  O'Neill,  Orth,  Paine,  Perhain, 
Peters,  Pike,  Pile,  Plants,  Poland,  Polsley,  Price,  Raura,  Robertson,  Sawyer,  Schenck, 
Scofield,  Selye,  Shanks,  Smith,  Spalding,  Starkweather,  Aaron  F.  Stevens,  Thaddeus 
Stevens,  Stokes,  Taffe,  Taylor,  Trowbridge,  Twichell,  Upson,  Van  Aernam,'  Burt  Van 
Horn,  Van  Wyck,  Ward,  Cadwalader  C.  "Washburn,  Elihu  B.  Washburne,  William  B. 
"Washburn,  Welker,  Thomas  Williams,  James  F.  Wilson,  John  T.  "Wilson,  Stephen  F. 
"Wilson,  "Windom,  Woodbridge,  and  the  Speaker  — 126. 

NOES.  —  Messrs.  Adams,  Archer,  Axtell,  Barnes,  Barnum,  Beck,  Boyer,  Brooks,  Burr, 
Gary,  Chanler,  Eldridge,  Fox,  Getz,  Glossbrenner,  Golladay,  Grover,  Haight,  Holman,  Hotch- 
kiss,  Richard  D.  Hubbard,  Humphrey,  Johnson,  Jones,  Kerr,  Knott,  Marshall,  McCormick, 
McCullouyh,  Morgan,  Morrissey,  Mungen,  Niblack,  Nicholson,  Phelps,  Pruyn,  Randall, 
Ross,  Sitgreaves,  Steicart,  Stone,  Taber,  Lawrence  S.  Trimble,  Van  Auken,  Van  Trump, 
Wood,  and  Woodward  —  47. 

ABSENT  OR  NOT  VOTING. — Messrs.  Benjamin,  Dixon,  Donnelly,  Ela,  Finney,  Gar- 
field,  Hawkins,  Koontz,  Maynard,  Pomeroy,  Robinson,  Shellabarger,  Thomas,  John 
Trimble,  Robert  T.  Van  Horn,  Henry  D.  Washburn,  and  William  "Williams  — 17. 


THE  MANAGERS  OF  IMPEACHMENT.  361 

were  adopted  by  a  strict  party  vote.  The  Speaker  appointed  Mr. 
Stevens  and  Mr.  Bingham  the  committee  to  notify  the  Senate  of  the 
impeachment  of  the  President,  and  further  appointed  Mr.  Boutwell, 
Mr.  Stevens,  Mr.  Bingham,  Mr.  J.  F.  Wilson,  Mr.  Logan,  Mr.  Julian, 
and  Mr.  Hamilton  Ward  of  New  York,  the  committee  to  prepare 
Articles  of  Impeachment  against  the  President. 

Five  days  afterwards,  on  the  29th  of  February,  Mr.  Boutwell, 
chairman  of  the  committee  appointed  to  prepare  Articles  of  Impeach- 
ment against  the  President,  made  his  report.  The  Articles  were  de- 
bated with  even  greater  manifestation  of  feeling  than  had  appeared  in 
the  discussion  on  the  resolution  of  Impeachment.  They  were  adopted 
March  2d,  by  a  party  vote.  The  House  then  proceeded  to  elect  man- 
agers of  the  Impeachment  by  ballot,  and  the  following  gentlemen 
were  chosen  (their  names  being  given  in  the  order  of  the  number 
of  votes  which  each  received) :  John  A.  Bingham,  George  S.  Bout- 
well,  James  F.  Wilson,  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  Thomas  Williams,  John 
A.  Logan,  and  Thaddeus  Stevens.  The  votes  for  the  several  man- 
agers did  not  widely  differ.  The  highest,  114,  was  given  to  Mr. 
Bingham ;  the  lowest,  105,  to  Mr.  Stevens.  The  latter  was  failing 
in  health  and  was  considered  by  many  members  unequal  to  the 
arduous  work  thus  imposed  on  him.  The  Democrats  presented  no 
candidates  and  took  no  part  in  the  election  of  managers. 

The  aggregate  ability  and  legal  learning  of  the  Managers  were 
everywhere  conceded.  Mr.  Stevens  in  the  period  of  his  active 
practice  held  a  very  high  rank  at  the  bar  of  Pennsylvania.  General 
Butler  was  in  the  profession  of  the  law,  as  in  all  other  relations, 
somewhat  peculiar  in  his  methods,  but  his  intellectual  force  and  his 
legal  learning  were  recognized  by  his  friends  and  his  enemies  — 
and  he  had  a  full  quota  of  each.  Mr.  Bingham,  Mr.  Boutwell,  Mr. 
Wilson,  General  Logan,  and  Mr.  Williams  represented  the  strength 
of  the  Republican  party  in  the  House.  Each  was  well  known  at 
the  bar  of  his  State,  and  each  was  profoundly  convinced  of  the 
necessity  of  convicting  the  President.  The  most  earnest  —  if  there 
was  any  difference  in  zeal  among  the  Managers — were  Mr.  Boutwell 
and  Mr.  Williams.  Mr.  Boutwell,  for  a  man  of  cool  temperament, 
thoroughly  honest  mind,  and  sober  judgment,  had  wrought  himself 
into  a  singularly  intense  belief  in  the  supreme  necessity  of  removing 
the  President ;  while  Mr.  Williams,  who  tended  towards  the  radical 
side  of  all  public  questions,  could  not  with  patience  hear  any  thing 
said  against  the  wisdom  and  expediency  of  Impeachment.  Mr. 


362  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Bingham  and  Mr.  Wilson  were  the  only  Managers  who  on  the  first 
effort  to  impeach  the  President  had  voted  in  the  negative. 

President  Johnson  was  well  advised  during  this  exciting  period 
in  Congress  and  betrayed  no  uneasiness.  He  was  guarded  against 
the  folly  of  talking,  which  was  his  easily  besetting  sin,  and  he  sought 
to  fortify  his  position  by  promptly  submitting  a  nomination  for  Sec- 
retary of  War.  On  Saturday,  February  22d,  the  day  following 
the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton,  he  sent  to  the  Senate  the  name  of 
Thomas  Ewing  (senior)  of  Ohio  as  his  successor.  The  Senate  had 
adjourned  when  the  President's  Secretary  reached  the  Capitol,  but 
the  nomination  was  formally  communicated  on  the  following  Mon- 
day. No  name  could  have  given  better  assurance  of  good  intentions 
and  upright  conduct  than  that  of  Mr.  Ewing.  He  was  a  man  of 
lofty  character,  of  great  eminence  in  his  profession  of  the  law,  and 
with  wide  and  varied  experience  in  public  life.  He  had  held  high 
rank  as  a  senator  in  the  Augustan  period  of  the  Senate's  learning  and 
eloquence,  and  he  had  been  one  of  the  ablest  members  of  the  dis- 
tinguished Cabinets  organized  by  the  only  two  Presidents  elected 
by  the  Whig  party.  He  had  reached  the  ripe  age  of  seventy-eight 
years  but  was  still  in  complete  possession  of  all  his  splendid  faculties. 
He  had  voted  for  Mr.  Lincoln  at  both  elections,  had  been  a  warm 
supporter  of  the  contest  for  the  Union,  and  was  represented  by  his 
own  blood  on  many  of  the  great  battle-fields  of  the  war.  The 
Lieutenant-General  of  the  army,  with  his  illustrious  record  of  service, 
second  only  to  that  of  General  Grant,  was  his  son-in-law. 

Of  whatever  deadly  designs  Mr.  Johnson  might  be  suspected, 
there  was  no  man  of  intelligence  in  the  United  States  willing  to  be- 
lieve that  Mr.  Ewing  could  be  tempted  to  do  an  unpatriotic  act,  to 
violate  the  Constitution,  or  to  fail  in  executing  with  fidelity  the  laws 
of  the  land.  If  the  President  intended  to  corrupt  the  army,  as 
charged  by  Mr.  Boutwell,  he  had  certainly  chosen  a  singular  co- 
laborer  in  the  person  of  Mr.  Ewing.  Wild  rumors  had  been  in 
circulation  that  the  President  was  determined  to  install  General 
Thomas  by  military  force,  and  to  eject  Mr.  Stanton  with  violence 
from  the  War  Office  which  he  refused  to  surrender.  The  public 
uneasiness  resulting  from  these  sensational  reports  was  in  large  degree 
allayed,  when  it  was  announced  that  the  President  had  signified  his 
desire  that  a  grave  and  considerate  man  with  long-established  reputa- 
tion for  ability  and  probity  should  serve  as  Secretary  of  War.  The 
surprise  in  the  whole  matter  was  that  the  President  should  have 


FORMAL  PRESENTMENT  OF  CHARGES.  363 

selected  Mr.  Ewing,  who,  as  was  known  to  a  few  friends,  had  ear- 
nestly advised  Mr.  Johnson  against  removing  Secretary  Stanton. 

The  Senate  however  was  in  no  mood  to  accept  any  nomination 
for  the  War  Office  from  President  Johnson.  The  issue  was  not 
whether  Mr.  Ewiiig  was  a  judicious  and  trustworthy  man  for  the 
vacancy,  but  whether  any  vacancy  existed.  If  Mr.  Johnson  had 
removed  or  attempted  to  remove  Mr.  Stanton  from  office  in  an 
unlawful  and  unconstitutional  manner,  the  Senate,  in  the  judgment 
of  those  who  were  directing  its  action,  would  be  only  condoning  his 
offense  by  consenting  to  the  appointment  of  a  successor.  Mr. 
Johnson's  right  to  nominate  any  one  was  denied,  and  when  the  name 
of  Mr.  Ewing  was  received  it  was  known  by  all  that  a  committee 
of  Representatives  might  at  any  moment  appear  at  the  bar  of  the 
Senate  to  present  an  Impeachment  against  the  President  for  unlaw- 
fully attempting  to  remove  Mr.  Stanton.  The  course  of  the  Senate 
had  been  fully  anticipated  by  the  President  and  his  advisers,  and 
they  had,  in  their  own  judgment  at  least,  obtained  an  advantage 
before  the  public  by  so  complete  an  abnegation  of  all  partisan  pur- 
poses as  was  implied  in  the  offer  to  confide  the  direction  of  the  War 
Department  to  Mr.  Ewing. 


The  formal  presentment  of  the  charges  against  the  President  at 
the  bar  of  the  Senate,  presided  over  by  the  Chief  Justice  of  the 
United  States,  and  sitting  as  a  Court  of  Impeachment,  was  made  on 
the  fifth  day  of  March  (1868),  when  the  House  of  Representatives, 
the  grand  inquest  of  the  nation,  attended  the  Managers  as  they 
came  to  the  discharge  of  their  solemn  duty.  Mr.  Bingham,  the  chair- 
man of  the  Managers,  read  the  Articles  of  Impeachment  against 
Andrew  Johnson.1  At  the  conclusion  of  the  reading  the  Senate  ad- 
journed to  the  13th,  when  the  counsel  of  the  President  appeared  and 
asked  that  forty  days  be  allowed  for  the  preparation  of  his  answer  to 
the  charges.  The  time  was  regarded  as  unreasonably  long,  and  the 
Senate  voted  to  adjourn  until  the  23d  of  March,  when  it  was  expected 
that  the  President's  counsel  would  present  his  answer.  The  Presi- 
dent's cause  was  represented  by  an  imposing  array  of  ability  and 
legal  learning.  The  Attorney-General,  Henry  Stanbery,  had  from 

1  The  Articles  of  Impeachment  on  which  the  Senate  voted  are  given  in  full  in 
Appendix  C. 


364  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

an  impulse  of  chivalric  devotion  resigned  his  post  for  the  purpose  of 
defending  his  chief.  His  reputation  as  a  lawyer  was  of  the  first  rank 
in  the  West,  where  for  nearly  forty  years  he  had  been  prominent  in 
his  profession.  But  though  first  named,  on  account  of  his  personal 
and  official  relations  with  the  President,  he  was  not  the  leading  coun- 
sel. The  two  men  upon  whom  the  success  of  the  President's  cause 
chiefly  rested  were  Judge  Curtis  and  Mr.  Evarts. 

Benjamin  R.  Curtis,  when  he  appeared  in  the  Impeachment  case, 
was  in  the  fullness  of  his  powers,  in  the  fifty-ninth  year  of  his  age. 
At  forty-one  he  had  been  appointed  to  the  Supreme  Bench  of  the 
United  States  at  the  earnest  request  and  warm  recommendation  of 
Mr.  Webster,  then .  Secretary  of  State.  Mr.  Webster  is  reported  to 
have  said  that  he  had  placed  the  people  of  Massachusetts  under  last- 
ing obligation  to  him  by  inducing  Governor  Lincoln,  in  1830,  to 
appoint  Lemuel  Shaw  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
State,  a  position  which  he  honored  and  adorned  for  thirty  years. 
Mr.  Webster  thought  he  was  doing  an  equal  service  to  the  people 
of  the  entire  Union  when  he  induced  the  President  to  call  Mr.  Curtis 
to  the  Supreme  Bench.  But  judicial  life  had  not  proved  altogether 
agreeable  to  Judge  Curtis,  and  after  a  remarkable  and  brilliant  career 
of  six  years  he  resigned,  in  October,  1857,  and  returned  to  the  prac- 
tice of  the  law  —  his  learning  increased,  his  mind  enriched  and 
broadened  by  the  grave  national  questions  engaging  the  attention 
of  the  court  during  the  period  of  his  service.  Thenceforward  during 
his  life  no  man  at  the  bar  of  the  United  States  held  higher  rank. 
He  was  entirely  devoted  to  his  profession.  He  had  taken  no  interest 
in  party  strife,  and  with  the  exception  of  serving  two  sessions  in  the 
Massachusetts  Legislature  he  had  never  held  a  political- office.  In 
arguing  a  cause  his  style  was  peculiarly  felicitous,  —  simple,  direct, 
clear.  In  the  full  maturity  of  his  powers  and  with  all  the  earnestness 
of  his  nature  he  engaged  in  the  President's  defense ;  and  lie  brought 
to  it  a  wealth  of  learning,  a  dignity  of  character,  an  impressiveness 
of  speech,  which  attracted  the  admiration  and  respect  of  all  who  had 
the  good  fortune  to  hear  his  great  argument. 

William  M.  Evarts,  who  was  associated  with  him,  was  nine  years 
the  junior  of  Mr.  Curtis.  He  had  followed  his  profession  with  equal 
devotion,  and,  like  his  illustrious  colleague,  had  never  been  deflected 
from  its  pursuit  by  participation  in  the  honors  of  political  life.  His 
career  had  been  in  the  city  of  New  York,  where,  against  all  the 
rivalry  of  the  Metropolitan  bar,  he  had  risen  so  rapidly  that  at  forty 


COUNSEL  OF  THE  PRESIDENT.  365 

years  of  age  his  victory  of  precedence  was  won  and  his  high  rank 
established.  A  signal  tribute  was  paid  to  his  legal  ability  and  his 
character  when,  in  the  early  stages  of  the  civil  war,  the  National 
Government  sent  him  abroad  on  an  important  and  delicate  errand  in 
connection  with  our  international  relations,  —  an  errand  which  could 
be  safely  entrusted  only  to  a  great  lawyer.  As  an  advocate  Mr. 
Evarts  early  became  conspicuous,  and,  in  the  best  sense,  famous. 
But  he  is  more  than  an  advocate.  He  is  an  orator,  —  affluent  in 
diction,  graceful  in  manner,  with  all  the  rare  and  rich  gifts  which 
attract  and  enchain  an  audience.  He  possesses  a  remarkable  com- 
bination of  wit  and  humor,  and  has  the  happy  faculty  of  using  both 
effectively,  without  inflicting  deadly  wounds,  without  incurring  hurt- 
ful enmities.  Differing  in  temperament  and  in  manner  from  Judge 
Curtis,  the  two  seemed  perfectly  adapted  for  professional  co-opera- 
tion, and  united  they  constituted  an  array  of  counsel  as  strong  as 
could  be  found  at  the  English-speaking  bar. 

It  was  expected  that  Judge  Jeremiah  S.  Black  would  add  his 
learning  and  ability  to  the  President's  counsel,  but  at  the  last  mo- 
ment before  the  trial  began  he  withdrew,  and  his  place  was  filled  by 
William  S.  Groesbeck  of  Cincinnati.  Mr.  Groesbeck  was  favorably 
known  to  the  country  by  his  service  as  a  Democratic  representative 
in  the  Thirty-sixth  Congress,  but  little  had  been  heard  of  his  legal 
learning  outside  of  Ohio.  He  took  no  part  in  the  conduct  of  the 
Impeachment  case,  but  his  final  argument  was  a  surprise  to  the 
Senate  and  to  his  professional  brethren,  and  did  much  to  give  him  a 
high  reputation  as  a  lawyer.  —  The  counsel  for  the  President  was 
completed  by  the  addition  of  a  confidential  friend  from  his  own  State, 
Hon.  T.  A.  R.  Nelson.  Mr.  Nelson  had  been  closely  associated  with 
Mr.  Johnson  in  the  Tennessee  struggles  for  the  Union,  had  gained 
reputation  as  a  representative  in  the  Thirty-sixth  Congress,  and  had 
acquired  a  good  standing  at  the  bar  of  his  State. 

The  answer  of  the  President  to  the  Articles  of  Impeachment 
having  been  presented  011  the  23d,  the  replication  of  the  House 
duly  made,  and  all  other  preliminary  and  introductory  steps  com- 
pleted, the  actual  trial  began  on  Monday,  the  thirtieth  day  of  March 
(1868),  when  General  Butler,  one  of  the  Managers  on  behalf  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  made  the  opening  argument.  It  was  very 
voluminous,  prepared  with  great  care  in  writing,  and  read  to  the 
Senate  from  printed  slips.  It  was  accompanied  by  a  brief  of  authori- 
ties upon  the  law  of  impeachable  crimes  and  misdemeanors,  prepared 


366  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

by  Hon.  William  Lawrence  of  Ohio  with  characteristic  industry  and 
learning.  While  every  point  in  the  charges  preferred  by  the  House 
was  presented  by  General  Butler  with  elaboration,  the  weight  of  his 
argument  against  the  President  lay  in  the  fact  that  the  removal  of 
Mr.  Stanton  from  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War  was,  as  he  averred, 
an  intentional  violation  of  the  Tenure-of-office  Act,  an  intentional 
violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  This  was  set 
forth  in  every  possible  form,  and  argued  in  every  possible  phase, 
with  the  well-known  ability  of  General  Butler ;  and  though  other 
charges  were  presented  against  the  President,  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives relied  mainly  upon  this  alleged  offense  for  his  conviction. 

General  Butler  in  his  argument  was  evidently  troubled  by  the 
proviso  in  the  Tenure-of-office  Act,  that  members  of  the  Cabinet 
should  hold  their  offices  "during  the  term  of  the  President  by 
whom  they  may  have  been  appointed,  and  for  one  month  longer.'' 
He  sought  to  anticipate  his  opponents'  argument  on  this  point. 
"By  whom  was  Mr.  Stanton  appointed?"  asked  General  Butler. 
"  By  Mr.  Lincoln.  Whose  Presidential  term  was  he  holding  under 
when  the  bullet  of  Booth  became  the  proximate  cause  of  this  trial  ? 
Was  not  his  appointment  in  full  force  at  that  hour?  Had  any 
act  of  President  Johnson  up  to  the  twelfth  day  of  August  last 
vitiated  or  interfered  with  that  appointment  ?  Whose  Presidential 
term  is  Mr.  Johnson  now  serving  out  ?  His  own  or  Mr.  Lincoln's  ? 
If  his  own,  he  is  entitled  to  four  years  up  to  the  anniversary  of  the 
murder,  because  each  Presidential  term  is  four  years  by  the  Consti- 
tution, and  the  regular  recurrence  of  those  terms  is  fixed  by  the  Act 
of  May  8,  1792.  If  he  is  serving  out  the  remainder  of  Mr.  Lincoln's 
term,  then  his  term  of  office  expires  on  the  4th  of  March,  1869,  if  it 
does  not  before." 

At  the  conclusion  of  General  Butler's  argument,  the  Managers 
submitted  their  testimony  in  support  of  the  charges  brought  by  the 
House.  Some  twenty-five  witnesses  in  all  were  introduced  by  the 
prosecution.  Many  of  them  were  merely  for  the  verification  of 
official  papers  which  were  submitted  in  evidence.  The  President's 
speeches  defaming  Congress  were  produced  and  sworn  to  by  the 
reporters  who  took  the  notes  when  the  President  delivered  them. 
The  Managers  concluded  their  testimony  on  the  fourth  day  of  April 
and  the  Senate  took  a  recess  for  five  days. 

On  the  9th  of  April  Judge  Curtis  of  the  President's  counsel 
opened  for  the  defense.  He  had  no  labored  introduction,  but  went 


ARGUMENT  OF  JUDGE  CURTIS.  367 

directly  to  his  argument.  He  struck  his  first  blow  at  the  weak  point 
in  General  Butler's  strong  speech.  Judge  Curtis  said:  "There  is  a 
question  involved  which  enters  deeply  into  the  first  eight  Articles 
of  Impeachment  and  materially  touches  two  of  the  others ;  and  to 
that  question  I  desire  in  the  first  place  to  invite  the  attention  of  the 
court,  namely,  whether  Mr.  Stanton's  case  comes  under  the  Tenure-of- 
office  Act  ?  .  .  .  I  must  ask  your  attention  therefore  to  the  construc- 
tion and  application  of  the  first  section  of  that  Act,  as  follows :  4  that 
every  person  holding  an  official  position  to  which  he  has  been  ap- 
pointed by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  every 
person  who  shall  hereafter  be  appointed  to  any  such  office  and  shall 
become  duly  qualified  to  act  therein,  is  and  shall  be  entitled  to  hold 
such  office  until  a  successor  shall  have  been  in  like  manner  appointed 
and  duly  qualified,  except  as  herein  otherwise  provided.''  Then  comes 
what  is  'otherwise  provided.'  ' Provided  however  that  the  Secre- 
taries of  the  State,  Treasury,  War,  Navy,  and  Interior  Departments, 
the  Postmaster-General  and  Attorney-General,  shall  hold  their  offices 
respectively  for  and  during  the  term  of  the  President  by  whom  they 
may  have  been  appointed  and  for  one  month  thereafter,  subject  to  re- 
moval by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Seriate? 

"The  first  inquiry  which  arises  on  this  language,"  said  Judge 
Curtis,  "  is  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  words  4  for  and  during  the  term 
of  the  President.'  Mr.  Stanton,  as  appears  by  the  commission  which 
has  been  put  into  the  case  by  the  honorable  Managers,  was  appointed 
in  January,  1862,  during  the  first  term  of  President  Lincoln.  Are 
these  words,  '  during  the  term  of  the  President/  applicable  to  Mr. 
Stanton's  case  ?  That  depends  upon  whether  an  expounder  of  this 
law  judicially,  who  finds  set  down  in  it  as  a  part  of  the  descriptive 
words,  '  during  the  term  of  the  President^  has  any  right  to  add  4  and 
during  any  other  term  for  which  he  may  be  afterwards  elected?  I  re- 
spectfully submit  no  such  judicial  interpretation  can  be  put  on  the 
words.  Then  if  you  please,  take  the  next  step.  4  During  the  term 
of  the  President  by  whom  he  was  appointed.'  At  the  time  when 
this  order  was  issued  for  the  removal  of  Mr.  Stanton,  was  he  hold- 
ing during  the  term  of  the  President  by  whom  he  was  appointed? 
The  honorable  Managers  say,  Yes ;  because,  as  they  say,  Mr.  John- 
son is  merely  serving  out  the  residue  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  term.  But  is 
that  so  under  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States?  .  .  .  Although  the  President,  like  the  Vice-President,  is 
elected  for  a  term  of  four  years,  and  each  is  elected  for  the  same 


368  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

term,  the  President  is  not  to  hold  his  office  absolutely  during  four 
years.  The  limit  of  four  years  is  not  an  absolute  limit.  Death  is 
a  limit.  A  4  conditional  limitation,'  as  the  lawyers  call  it,  is  imposed 
on  his  tenure  of  office.  And  when  the  President  dies  his  term  of 
four  years,  for  which  he  was  elected  and  during  which  he  was  to 
hold  provided  he  should  so  long  live,  terminates  and  the  office  de- 
volves upon  the  Vice-President.  For  what  period  of  time?  For 
the  remainder  of  the  term  for  which  the  Vice-President  was  elected. 
And  there  is  no  more  propriety,  under  these  provisions  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  in  calling  the  time  during  which  Mr. 
Johnson  holds  the  office  of  President,  after  it  was  devolved  upon 
him,  a  part  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  term  than  there  would  be  propriety  in 
saying  that  one  sovereign  who  succeeded  another  sovereign  by  death 
holds  part  of  his  predecessor's  term." 

Judge  Curtis  consumed  two  days  in  the  delivery  of  his  argu- 
ment. He  made  a  deep  impression,  not  only  on  the  members  of 
the  Senate  but  on  all  who  had  the  privilege  of  hearing  him.  His 
manner  was  quiet  and  undemonstrative,  with  no  gestures,  and  with 
no  attempt  at  loud  talk.  His  language  expressed  his  meaning 
with  precision.  There  was  no  deficiency  and  no  redundancy.  He 
seldom  used  a  word  more  or  a  word  less  than  was  needed  to  give 
elegance  to  his  diction,  explicitness  to  his  meaning,  completeness  to 
his  logic.  He  analyzed  every  argument  of  the  Impeachment  with 
consummate  skill.  Those  who  dissented  from  his  conclusions  united 
with  those  who  assented  to  them  in  praise  of  his  masterly  present- 
ment of  the  President's  defense. 

After  Judge  Curtis  had  concluded,  witnesses  were  called  on 
behalf  of  the  President.  The  struggle  that  followed  for  the  admis- 
sion or  exclusion  of  testimony  obviously  strengthened  the  Presi- 
dent's case  in  popular  opinion,  which  is  always  influenced  by 
considerations  of  what  is  deemed  fair  play.  Exclusion  of  testimony 
by  an  arbitrary  vote  on  mere  technical  objections,  especially  where 
men  equally  learned  in  the  law  differ  as  to  its  competency  and  rel- 
evancy, is  not  wise  in  a  political  case  that  depends  for  its  ultimate 
judgment  upon  the  sober  thought  of  the  people.  Judge  Curtis  had 
maintained  with  cogent  argument  that  the  President  was  entitled 
to  a  judicial  interpretation  of  the  Tenure-of-office  Law,  and  his 
associate  counsel,  Mr.  Evarts,  in  the  progress  of  the  case  made  this 
proposition :  — 

"  We  offer  to  prove  that  the  President  at  a  meeting  of  the  Cab- 


TESTIMONY  OFFERED  AND  REJECTED.  369 

inet  while  the  bill  was  before  him  for  his  approval,  laid  the  Tenure- 
of-office  Bill  before  the  Cabinet  for  their  consideration  and  advice 
respecting  his  approval  of  the  bill,  arid  thereupon  the  members  of 
the  Cabinet  then  present  gave  their  advice  to  the  President  that  the 
bill  was  unconstitutional  and  should  be  returned  to  Congress  with 
his  objections,  and  that  the  duty  of  preparing  the  message  setting 
forth  the  objections  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  bill  was  devolved 
upon  Mr.  Seward  and  Mr.  Stanton"  The  Managers  of  the  House 
objected  to  the  admission  of  the  testimony  and  the  question  of  its 
admissibility  was  argued  at  length  by  General  Butler,  by  Judge 
Curtis,  and  by  Mr.  Evarts.  Chief  Justice  Chase  decided  "  that  the 
testimony  is  admissible  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  intent  with 
which  the  President  has  acted  in  this  transaction."  Mr.  Howard  of 
Michigan  thereupon  demanded  that  the  question  be  submitted  to  the 
Senate,  and  by  a  vote  of  29  to  20  the  decision  of  the  Chief  Justice 
was  overruled  and  the  testimony  excluded.  This  exclusion  impressed 
the  public  most  unfavorably. 

Mr.  Evarts  offered  further  on  behalf  of  the  President,  "  to  prove 
that  at  the  meetings  of  the  Cabinet,  at  which  Mr.  Stanton  was 
present,  held  while  the  Tenure-of-office  Bill  was  before  the  President 
for  his  approval,  the  advice  of  the  Cabinet  in  regard  to  the  same 
was  asked  by  the  President  and  given  by  the  Cabinet,  and  there- 
upon the  question  whether  Mr.  Stanton  and  the  other  Secretaries 
who  had  received  their  appointment  from  Mr.  Lincoln  were  within 
the  restrictions  upon  the  President's  power  of  removal  from  office 
created  by  said  Act,  was  considered,  and  the  opinion  was  ex- 
pressed that  the  Secretaries  appointed  by  Mr.  Lincoln  -were  not 
within  such  restrictions."  The  Chief  Justice  decided  "that  this 
testimony  is  proper  to  be  taken  into  consideration  by  the  Senate 
sitting  as  a  Court  of  Impeachment,"  whereupon  Senator  Drake  of 
Missouri  demanded  that  the  question  be  submitted  to  the  Senate, 
and  by  a  vote  of  26  to  22  the  Chief  Justice  was  again  overruled  and 
the  testimony  declared  to  be  inadmissible. 

On  behalf  of  the  President,  Mr.  Evarts  then  offered  "to  prove 
that  at  the  Cabinet  meetings  between  the  passage  of  the  Tenure- 
of-office  Act  and  the  order  of  the  21st  of  February,  1868,  for  the 
removal  of  Mr.  Stanton,  upon  occasions  when  the  condition  of 
the  public  service  was  affected  by  the  operation  of  that  bill  and  it 
came  up  for  consideration  and  advice  by  the  Cabinet,  it  was  consid- 
ered by  the  President  and  the  Cabinet  that  a  proper  regard  for  the 

VOL.  II.  24 


370  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

public  service  made  it  desirable  that  upon  some  proper  case  a  judicial 
determination  of  the  constitutionality  of  the  law  should  be  obtained." 
The  Managers  objected  to  the  admission  of  the  testimony,  and  the 
Chief  Justice,  apparently  tired  of  having  his  decisions  overruled, 
submitted  the  question  at  once  to  the  Senate.  By  a  vote  of  30  to 
19  the  testimony  was  declared  to  be  inadmissible.  All  the  proffered 
testimony  on  these  several  points  was  excluded  while  the  Hon.  Gideon 
Welles,  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  was  on  the  stand.  He  was  to  be  the 
first  witness  to  substantiate  the  offer  of  proof  which  the  President's 
counsel  had  made ;  to  be  corroborated,  if  need  be,  by  other  members 
of  the  Cabinet  —  possibly  by  Mr.  Stanton  himself. 

The  testimony  on  both  sides  having  been  concluded,  on  the  22d 
of  April  General  John  A.  Logan,  one  of  the  Managers  on  the  part 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  filed  his  argument  in  the  case.  It 
was  carefully  prepared,  well  written,  and  throughout  logical  in  its 
analysis.  It  was  uncompromisingly  pungent  in  tone  and  severe  in 
its  method  of  dealing  with  President  Johnson.  "  The  world,"  said 
General  Logan,  "in  after  times  will  read  the  history  of  the  Adminis- 
tration of  Andrew  Johnson  as  an  illustration  of  the  depth  to  which 
political  and  official  perfidy  can  descend.  His  great  aim  and  purpose 
has  been  to  subvert  law,  usurp  authority,  insult  and  outrage  Congress, 
reconstruct  the  rebel  States  in  the  interest  of  treason,  and  insult  the 
memories  and  resting-places  of  our  heroic  dead." 

Mr.  Boutwell  on  the  two  succeeding  days  made  a  strong  arraign- 
ment of  the  President.  Indeed  he  made  all  that  well  could  be  made 
out  of  the  charges  preferred  by  the  House.  He  exhibited  through- 
out his  address  the  earnestness  and  the  eloquence  which  come  from 
intense  conviction.  He  believed  that  the  President  had  committed 
high  crimes  and  misdemeanors,  and  he  believed  that  the  safety  of  the 
Republic  required  his  removal  from  office.  With  this  belief  his 
argument  was  of  course  impressive.  "  The  House  of  Representa- 
tives," said  he  in  closing,  "  have  presented  this  criminal  at  your  bar 
with  equal  confidence  in  his  guilt  and  in  your  disposition  to  admin- 
ister exact  justice  between  him  and  the  people  of  the  United  States. 
I  do  not  contemplate  his  acquittal :  it  is  impossible.  Therefore  I  do 
not  look  beyond ;  but,  senators,  the  people  of  the  United  States  of 
America  will  never  permit  an  usurping  Executive  to  break  down  the 
securities  for  liberty  provided  in  the  Constitution.  The  cause  of  the 
Republic  is  in  your  hands.  Your  verdict  of  Guilty  is  PEACE  to  our 
beloved  country."  Mr.  Nelson  of  Tennessee  followed  Mr.  Boutwell 


ARGUMENT  OF  MR.   GROESBECK.  371 

with  a  long  and  earnest  plea  in  behalf  of  the  President,  somewhat 
effusive  in  its  character  but  distinguished  for  the  enthusiasm  with 
which  he  defended  his  personal  friend. 

Mr.  Groesbeck  next  addressed  the  Senate  on  behalf  of  the  Pres- 
ident. He  made  a  clear,  forcible  presentation  of  the  grounds  of 
defense.  Mr.  Boutwell  had  asserted  "  that  the  President  cannot 
prove  or  plead  the  motive  by  which  he  professes  to  have  been  gov- 
erned in  his  violation  of  the  laws  of  the  country.  .  .  .  The  necessary, 
the  inevitable  presumption  in  law  is  that  he  acted  under  the  influence 
of  bad  motives  in  so  doing,  and  no  evidence  can  be  introduced  con- 
trolling or  coloring  in  any  degree  this  necessary  presumption  of  the 
law."  In  reviewing  this  position,  Mr.  Groesbeck  reminded  the 
Senate  that  President  Lincoln  had  "  claimed  and  exercised  the  power 
of  organizing  military  commissions  under  which  he  arrested  and 
imprisoned  citizens  within  the  loyal  States.  He  had  no  Act  of 
Congress  warranting  it,  and  the  Supreme  Court  has  decided  that  the 
act  was  against  the  express  provisions  of  the  Constitution.  Accord- 
ing to  the  gentleman  on  the  other  side,  then,  Mr.  Lincoln  must  be 
convicted.  .  .  .  The  gentleman  seems  to  acknowledge  that  there 
must  be  a  motive.  There  can  be  no  crime  without  motive ;  but 
when  the  party  comes  forward  and  offers  to  prove  his  motive,  the 
answer  is,  4  You  shall  not  prove  it.'  When  he  comes  forward  and 
offers  to  prove  it  from  his  warm,  living  heart,  the  answer  is,  4  We  will 
make  up  your  motive  out  of  the  presumptions  of  law  and  conclude 
you  upon  that  subject.  We  will  not  hear  you.'  v 

Mr.  Boutwell  renewed  with  vigor  the  argument  that  the  excep- 
tion made  in  the  Tenure-of-office  Act,  in  regard  to  members  of 
the  Cabinet,  did  not  give  the  President  power  to  remove  Mr. 
Stanton.  "We  maintain,"  said  Mr.  Boutwell,  "that  Mr.  Stanton 
was  holding  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War  for  and  in  the  term  of 
President  Lincoln,  by  whom  he  had  been  appointed.  ...  It  was 
not  a  new  office :  it  was  not  a  new  term.  Mr.  Johnson  succeeded 
to  Mr.  Lincoln's  office  and  for  the  remainder  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  term 
of  office.  He  is  serving  out  Mr.  Lincoln's  term  as  President." 

Mr.  Groesbeck's  reply  on  this  point  was  effective  :  "  The  gentle- 
man has  said  this  is  Mr.  Lincoln's  term.  The  dead  have  no  "owner- 
ship in  offices  or  estate  of  any  kind.  Mr.  Johnson  is  President  of 
the  United  States  with  a  term,  and  this  is  his  term.  But  it  would 
make  no  difference  if  Mr.  Lincoln  were  living  to-day.  If  Mr.  Lincoln 
were  the  President  to-day  he  could  remove  Mr.  Stanton.  Mr.  Lincoln 


372  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

would  not  have  appointed  him  during  this  term.  It  was  during  Mr. 
Lincoln's  first  term  that  Mr.  Stanton  received  his  appointment,  and 
not  this  term  ;  and  an  appointment  by  a  President  during  one  term,  by 
the  operation  of  this  law,  will  not  extend  the  appointee  during  another 
term  because  that  same  party  may  happen  to  be  re-elected  to  the  Pres- 
idency. Mr.  Stanton  therefore  holds  under  his  commission  and  not 
under  the  law" 

Mr.  Thaddeus  Stevens  attempted  to  address  the  Senate,  but  he 
found  himself  too  much  exhausted  and  handed  his  manuscript  to 
General  Butler,  who  read  it  to  the  Senate.  The  argument  had  many 
of  the  significant  features  of  Mr.  Stevens's  style,  but  lacked  the  vigor 
which  in  the  day  of  his  strength  he  had  always  shown.  He  was 
rapidly  failing  in  health  and  was  then  within  a  few  weeks  of  his 
death.  Hon.  Thomas  Williams  of  Pennsylvania  followed  Mr. 
Stevens  with  a  written  argument,  rhetorically  finished  and  read  with 
great  emphasis.  It  presented  in  new  and  attractive  form  the  argu- 
ments already  submitted,  but  towards  the  close  contained  the  impru- 
dent expression  that  "  the  eyes  of  an  expectant  people  are  upon  the 
Senate." 

Mr.  Evarts  followed  with  an  argument  of  great  length,  reviewing 
every  phase  and  feature  of  the  case  and  making  a  remarkably  effective 
plea  on  behalf  of  his  eminent  client.  It  was  as  strong  in  its  logic  as  it 
was  faultless  in  its  style.  The  concluding  portion  of  the  address  was 
especially  eloquent  and  convincing.  "  We  never  dreamed,"  said  he, 
"  that  an  instructed  and  equal  people,  with  a  government  yielding 
so  readily  to  the  touch  of  popular  will,  would  have  come  to  the  trial 
of  force  against  it.  We  never  thought  that  the  remedy  to  get  rid 
of  a  ruler  would  bring  assassination  into  our  political  experience. 
We  never  thought  that  political .  differences  under  an  elective  Pres- 
idency would  bring  in  array  the  departments  of  the  Government 
against  one  another  to  anticipate  by  ten  months  the  operation  of  the 
regular  election.  And  yet  we  take  them  all,  one  after  another,  and 
we  take  them  because  we  have  grown  to  the  full  vigor  of  manhood. 
But  we  have  met  by  the  powers  of  the  Constitution  these  great 
dangers  —  prophesied  when  they  would  arise  as  likely  to  be  our 
doom —  the  distractions  of  civil  strife,  the  exhaustions  of  powerful 
war,  the  intervention  of  the  regularity  of  power  through  the  violence 
of  assassination.  We  could  summon  from  the  people  a  million  of 
men  and  inexhaustible  treasure  to  help  the  Constitution  in  its  time 
of  need.  Can  we  summon  now  resources  enough  of  civil  prudence 


ARGUMENT  OF  MR.  STANBERY.  373 

and  of  restraint  of  passion  to  carry  us  through  this  trial,  so  that  what- 
ever result  may  follow,  in  whatever  form,  the  people  may  feel  that 
the  Constitution  has  received  no  wound  ?  To  this  court,  the  last  and 
best  resort  for  its  determination,  it  is  to  be  left." 

Mr.  Stanbery,  unable  to  deliver  his  well-prepared  argument, 
employed  one  of  the  officers  of  the  Attorney-General's  department 
to  read  the  greater  part  of  it.  During  his  service  as  Attorney-Gen- 
eral he  had  become  personally  and  deeply  attached  to  the  President, 
and  now  made  an  earnest  plea  in  his  behalf.  "  During  the  eighty 
years  of  our  political  existence,"  said  Mr.  Stanbery,  "  we  have  wit- 
nessed the  fiercest  contests  of  party.  ...  A  favorite  legislative  policy 
has  more  than  once  been  defeated  by  the  obstinate  and  determined 
resistance  of  the  President,  upon  some  of  the  gravest  and  most  im- 
portant questions  we  have  ever  had  or  are  ever  likely  to  have.  The 
Presidential  policy  and  the  legislative  policy  have  stood  in  direct 
antagonism.  During  all  that  time  this  fearful  power  of  Impeach- 
ment was  in  the  hands  of  the  legislative  department,  and  more  than 
once  a  resort  to  it  has  been  advised  by  extreme  party  men,  as  a  sure 
remedy  for  party  purposes;  but  happily  that  evil  hitherto  has  not 
come  upon  us." 

Hon.  John  A.  Bingham  summed  up  the  case  on  behalf  of  the 
House  and  reviewed  all  the  charges  against  the  President,  answering 
point  by  point  the  argument  of  his  counsel.  "  I  ask  you,  senators," 
said  Mr.  Bingham,  "  how  long  men  would  deliberate  iipon  the  ques- 
tion whether  a  private  citizen,  arraigned  at  the  bar  of  one  of  your 
tribunals  of  justice  for  criminal  violation  of  law,  should  be  per- 
mitted to  interpose  a  plea  in  justification  of  his  criminal  act  that 
his  only  purpose  was  to  interpret  the  Constitution  and  laws  for 
himself,  that  he  violated  the  law  in  the  exercise  of  his  prerogative 
to  test  its  validity  hereafter,  at  such  day  as  might  suit  his  own  con- 
venience, in  the  courts  of  justice.  Surely,  senators,  it  is  as  compe- 
tent for  the  private  citizen  to  interpose  such  justification  in  answer 
to  crime  as  it  is  for  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  interpose 
it,  and  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  Constitution  is  no  respecter  of 
persons,  and  vests  neither  in  the  President  nor  in  the  private  citizen 
judicial  power.  .  .  .  For  the  Senate  to  sustain  any  such  plea  would 
in  my  judgment  be  a  gross  violation  of  the  already  violated  Consti- 
tution and  laws  of  a  free  people." 

When  the  counsel  on  both  sides  had  finished,  a  certain  period 
was  allowed  for  senators  to  prepare  and  file  their  opinions  on  the 


374  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

case.  This  was  done  by  twenty-nine  senators 1  and  the  question  was 
thus  re-argued  with  consummate  ability,  for  the  Senate  contained  a 
number  of  lawyers  of  high  rank  and  long  experience  at  the  bar.  On 
the  llth  of  May  the  Senate  was  ready  to  vote,  and  the  interest  in  the 
result  was  intense.  There  had  been  much  speculation  as  to  the  posi- 
tion of  certain  senators,  but  as  all  the  members  of  the  body  had  main- 
tained discreet  silence  during  the  trial,  it  was  impossible  to  forecast 
the  result  with  any  degree  of  certainty.  The  only  judgment  that  had 
the  least  significance  was  founded  on  the  votes  given  to  admit  or  to 
reject  certain  testimony  proposed  by  the  President's  counsel.  This 
of  course  gave  no  certain  indication  of  the  vote  of  senators ;  though 
the  general  belief  was  that  the  Impeachment  would  fail.  The  trans- 
fer of  the  en.tire  House  to  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  the  galleries 
crowded  with  citizens  from  all  parts  of  the  Republic,  the  presence 
of  all  the  foreign  ministers  in  the  Diplomatic  Gallery  eagerly  watch- 
ing the  possible  and  peaceful  deposition  of  a  sovereign  ruler,  the 
large  attendance  of  the  representatives  of  the  press,  —  all  attested 
the  profound  impression  which  the  trial  had  made  and  the  intense 
anxiety  with  which  its  conclusion  was  awaited. 

By  an  order  of  the  Senate  the  first  vote  was  taken  on  the  last 
Article,  which  was  a  summary  of  many  of  the  charges  set  forth  at 
greater  length  in  some  of  the  preceding  Articles  of  Impeachment. 
Upon  the  call  of  his  name  each  senator  was  required  to  rise  and 
answer  "  Guilty  "  or  "  Not  guilty."  The  roll  was  called  in  breathless 
silence,  with  hundreds  of  tally-papers  in  the  hands  of  eager  observers 
on  the  floor  and  in  the  gallery,  carefully  noting  each  response  as 
given.  The  result,  announced  at  once  by  the  Chief  Justice,  showed 
that  thirty-five  senators  had  declared  the  President  "guilty"  and 
nineteen  had  declared  him  "  not  guilty"2  As  conviction  required  two- 

1  The  following  senators  filed  opinions  :  — 

Messrs.  Ferry  of  Connecticut,  Trurnbull  and  Yates  of  Illinois,  HendricTcs  of  Indi- 
ana, Grimes  and  Harlan  of  Iowa,  Pomeroy  of  Kansas,  Davis  of  Kentucky,  Fessenden 
and  Morrill  of  Maine,  Johnson  and  Vickers  of  Maryland,  Sumner  and  Wilson  of  Massa- 
chusetts, Howard  of  Michigan,  Henderson  of  Missouri,  Tipton  of  Nebraska,  Stewart  of 
Nevada,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire,  Frelinghuysen  and  Cattell  of  New  Jersey,  Sher- 
man of  Ohio,  Williams  of  Oregon,  Bnckalew  of  Pennsylvania,  Edmunds  and  Morrill  of 
Vermont,  Van  Winkle  of  West  Virginia,  Howe  and  DOOLITTLE  of  Wisconsin. 

2  The  following  is  the  vote  of  the  Senate  in  detail.   Republicans  are  given  in  Roman, 
Democrats  in  Italic,  Administration  Republicans  in  small  capitals.    Every  senator  was 
present  and  voted. 

GUILTY.  —  Messrs.  Anthony  of  Rhode  Island,  Cameron  of  Pennsylvania,  Cattell  of 
New  Jersey,  Chandler  of  Michigan,  Cole  of  California,  Conkling  of  New  York,  Conness 
of  California,  Corbett  of  Oregon,  Cragin  of  New  Hampshire,  Drake  of  Missouri,  Ed- 


THE  CLOSE  OF  THE  IMPEACHMENT  TRIAL.  375 

thirds  the  Impeachment  on  the  Eleventh  Article  had  failed.  A 
debate  then  arose  on  a  proposition  to  rescind  the  resolution  in  regard 
to  the  order  in  which  the  vote  should  be  taken  upon  the  other  Arti- 
cles of  Impeachment,  but  without  reaching  a  conclusion,  the  Senate 
as  a  Court  of  Impeachment  adjourned,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Cameron  of 
Pennsylvania,  until  Tuesday  the  26th  day  of  May. 

During  the  intervening  period  of  fifteen  days  the  air  was  filled 
with  rumors  that  the  result  would  be  different  when  the  Senate 
should  come  to  vote  on  the  remaining  Articles.  A  single  senator 
changing  against  the  President  would  give  thirty-six  for  conviction, 
and  leave  only  eighteen  for  acquittal.  This  would  be  fatal  to  the 
President,  as  it  would  give  the  two-thirds  necessary  for  conviction. 
But  it  was  not  so  ordained.  When  the  Senate  re-assembled  on  the 
26th,  the  vote  was  taken  on  the  Second  Article,  and  then  upon  the 
Third,  with  precisely  the  same  result  as  was  previously  reached 
on  the  Eleventh  Article.  When  Mr.  Ross  of  Kansas  answered 
"Not  guilty"  there  was  an  audible  sensation  of  relief  on  the  part 
of  some,  and  of  surprise  on  the  part  of  others,  showing  quite  plainly 
that  rumor  had  been  busy  with  his  name  as  that  of  the  senator 
who  was  expected  to  change  his  position.  Satisfied  that  further 
voting  was  useless,  the  Senate  abandoned  the  remaining  Articles, 
and  as  a  Court  of  Impeachment  adjourned  sine  die. 


The  great  trial  was  over,  and  the  President  retained  his  high 
office.  In  the  ranks  of  the  more  radical  portion  of  the  Republican 
party  there  was  an  outbreak  of  indignation  against  the  Republican 
senators  who  had  voted  "  Not  guilty"  In  the  exaggerated  denuncia- 
tion caused  by  the  anger  and  chagrin  of  the  moment,  great  injustice 

munds  of  Vermont,  Ferry  of  Connecticut,  Frelinghuysen  of  New  Jersey,  Harlan  of 
Iowa,  Howard  of  Michigan,  Howe  of  Wisconsin,  Morgan  of  New  York,  Merrill  of  Maine, 
Morrill  of  Vermont,  Morton  of  Indiana,  Nye  of  Nevada,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire, 
Pomeroy  of  Kansas,  Ramsey  of  Minnesota,  Sherman  of  Ohio,  Sprague  of  Rhode  Island, 
Stewart  of  Nevada,  Sumner  of  Massachusetts,  Thayer  of  Nebraska,  Tipton  of  Nebraska, 
"Wade  of  Ohio,  Willey  of  West  Virginia,  Williams  of  Oregon,  Wilson  of  Massachusetts, 
and  Yates  of  Illinois  —  35. 

NOT  GUILTY.  —  Messrs.  Bayard  of  Delaware,  Buckalew  of  Pennsylvania,  Davis  of 
Kentucky,  DIXON  of  Connecticut,  DOOLITTLE  of  Wisconsin,  Fessenden  of  Maine,  Fowler 
of  Tennessee,  Grimes»  of  Iowa,  Henderson  of  Missouri,  Hendricks  of  Indiana,  Johnson 
of  Maryland,  McCreenj  of  Kentucky,  NORTON  of  Minnesota,  PATTERSON  of  Tennessee, 
Ross  of  Kansas,  Saulsbury  of  Delaware,  Trumbull  of  Illinois,  Van  Winkle  of  West 
Virginia,  and  Vickers  of  Maryland  — 19. 


376  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

was  done  to  statesmen  of  spotless  character.  But  until  time  had  been 
given  for  reflection  on  the  part  of  the  excited  mass  of  disappointed 
men,  it  was  idle  to  interpose  a  word  in  defense,  much  less  in  justifica- 
tion, of  the  senators  who  had  conscientiously  differed  from  the  main 
body  of  their  political  associates.  While,  however,  the  majority  of 
Republicans  shared  in  the  chagrin  caused  by  the  defeat  of  Impeach- 
ment, a  large  and  increasing  number  of  the  cool-headed  and  more 
conservative  members  of  the  party  took  a  different  view.  Men  of 
this  class  rejoiced  at  the  result  as  a  fortunate  exit  from  an  indefensi- 
ble position,  which  had  been  taken  in  the  heat  of  just  resentment 
against  the  President  for  his  desertion  of  those  important  principles 
of  public  policy  to  which  he  had  been  solemnly  pledged.  Still  another 
class,  even  more  numerous  than  the  last-named,  took  a  less  conscien- 
tious but  more  sanguine  view  of  the  situation  —  rejoicing  both  in  the 
act  of  Impeachment  and  in  the  failure  to  convict.  Their  specious 
belief  was  that  the  narrow  escape  which  the  President  had  made 
would  frighten  him  out  of  all  mischievous  designs  for  the  remainder 
of  his  term ;  while  the  narrow  escape  which  the  party  had  made,  left 
to  it  in  the  impending  Presidential  contest  all  the  advantage  of  politi- 
cal power  so  firmly  held  by  Congress,  and  at  the  same  time  imposed 
upon  the  Democrats  the  responsibility  for  a  discredited  and  disgraced 
Administration  of  the  Government. 

The  sober  reflection  of  later  years  has  persuaded  many  who 
favored  Impeachment  that  it  was  not  justifiable  on  the  charges  made, 
and  that  its  success  would  have  resulted  in  greater  injury  to  free 
institutions  than  Andrew  Johnson  in  his  utmost  endeavor  was  able 
to  inflict.  No  impartial  reader  can  examine  the  record  of  the  plead- 
ings and  arguments  of  the  Managers  who  appeared  on  behalf  of  the 
House,  without  feeling  that  the  President  was  impeached  for  one 
series  of  misdemeanors,  and  tried  for  another  series.  This  was  per- 
haps not  unnatural.  The  Republicans  had  the  gravest  'cause  to 
complain  of  the  President's  course  on  public  affairs.  He  had  pro- 
fessed the  most  radical  creed  of  their  party,  had  sought  their 
confidence,  had  received  their  suffrages.  Entrusted  with  the  chief 
Executive  power  of  the  Nation  by  Republican  ballots,  he  professed 
upon  his  accession  to  office  the  most  entire  devotion  to  the  principles 
of  the  party ;  but  he  had,  with  a  baseness  hardly  to  be  exaggerated, 
repudiated  his  professions,  deserted  the  friends  who  had  confided  in 
him,  and  made  an  alliance  with  those  who  had  been  the  bitterest  foes 
of  the  Union  in  the  bloody  struggle  which  had  just  closed. 


THE  REAL  OFFENSES  OF  THE  PRESIDENT.  377 

In  the  outraged  and  resentful  minds  of  those  who  had  sustained 
the  Union  cause  through  its  trials,  the  real  offenses  of  the  President 
were  clearly  seen,  and  bitterly  denounced :  —  his  hostility  to  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment ;  his  unwillingness  to  make  citizenship 
National;  his  opposition  to  all  efforts  to  secure  the  safety  of  the 
public  debt,  and  the  sacredness  of  the  soldier's  pension;  his  resistance 
to  measures  that  would  put  the  rebel  debt  beyond  the  possibility  of 
being  a  burden  upon  the  whole  nation  or  even  upon  the  people  of 
the  Southern  States ;  his  determination  that  freedmen  should  not  be 
placed  within  the  protection  of  Organic  law ;  his  eagerness  to  turn 
the  Southern  States  over  to  the  control  of  the  rebel  element,  without 
condition  and  without  restraint ;  his  fixed  hostility  to  every  form  of 
reconstruction  that  looked  to  national  safety  and  the  prevention  of 
another  rebellion;  his  opposition  to  every  scheme  that  tended  to 
equalize  representation  in  Congress,  North  and  South,  and  his  per- 
sistent demand  that  the  negro  should  be  denied  suffrage,  yet  be 
counted  in  the  basis  of  apportionment;  his  treacherous  and  ma- 
lignant conduct  in  connection  with  the  atrocious  massacre  at  New 
Orleans ;  his  hostility  to  the  growth  of  free  States  in  the  North-West, 
while  he  was  constantly  urging  the  instant  re-admission  of  all  the 
rebel  States ;  his  denial  of  a  morsel  of  food  to  the  suffering  and 
starving  negro  and  white  Unionist  of  the  South  in  their  dire  ex- 
tremity, as  shown  by  his  veto  of  the  Freedmen's-bureau  Bill;  his 
cruel  attempt  to  exclude  the  colored  man  from  the  power  to  protect 
himself  by  law,  in  his  shameless  veto  of  the  Civil  Rights  Bill ;  and 
last,  and  worst  of  all,  his  heartless  abandonment  of  that  Union-lov- 
ing class  of  white  men  in  the  South  who  became  the  victims  of  rebel 
hatred,  from  which  he  had  himself  escaped  only  by  the  strength  of 
the  National  arms.  In  recounting  all  the  acts  which  made  up  the 
roll  of  his  political  dishonor,  Johnson  had,  in  Republican  opinion, 
committed  none  so  hideous  as  his  turning  over  the  Southern  Union- 
ists to  the  vengeance  of  those  who,  as  he  well  knew,  were  incapable 
of  dealing  with  them  in  a  spirit  of  justice,  and  who  were  unwilling 
to  show  mercy,  even  after  they  had  themselves  received  it  in  quality 
that  was  not  strained. 

Could  the  President  have  been  legally  and  constitutionally  im- 
peached for  these  offenses  he  should  not  have  been  allowed  to  hold 
his  office  for  an  hour  beyond  the  time  required  for  a  fair  trial.  But 
the  Articles  of  Impeachment  did  not  even  refer  to  any  charge  of  this 
kind,  and  a  stranger  to  our  history,  in  perusing  them,  could  not  pos- 


078  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

sibly  infer  that  behind  the  legal  verbiage  of  the  Articles  there  was  in 
the  minds  of  the  representatives  who  presented  them  a  deadly  hos- 
tility to  the  President  for  offenses  totally  different  from  the  technical 
violation  of  a  statute,  for  which  he  was  arraigned,  —  a  statute  that 
never  ought  to  have  been  enacted,  as  was  practically  confessed  by 
its  framers,  when,  within  less  than  a  year  after  the  Impeachment  trial 
had  closed,  they  modified  its  provisions  by  taking  away  their  most 
offensive  features. 

The  charges  on  which  the  House  actually  arraigned  the  President 
were  in  substance,  that  he  had  violated  the  Tenure-of-office  Act ; 
that  he  .had  conspired  with  Lorenzo  Thomas  to  violate  it;  that  he 
had  consulted  with  General  Emory  to  see  whether,  independent  of 
the  General-in-Chief,  he  could  not  issue  orders  to  the  army  to  aid 
him  in  his  determination  to  violate  it ;  and  lastly,  that  he  had  spoken 
of  Congress  in  such  a  manner  as  tended  to  bring  a  co-ordinate  branch 
of  the  Government  into  "  disgrace,  ridicule,  hatred,  contempt,  and 
reproach."  The  charge  of  conspiring  with  Lorenzo  Thomas,  as  well 
as  that  in  respect  to  General  Emory,  appeared  in  the  end  to  be  not 
only  unsustained,  but  trivial.  The  President  had  conspired  in 
precisely  the  same  way  with  General  Sherman  when  he  urged  him  to 
accept  the  post  of  Secretary  of  War  as  Mr.  Stanton's  successor.  The 
charge  that  he  had  attempted  to  bring  Congress  into  "  disgrace, 
ridicule,  hatred,  contempt,  and  reproach,"  was  laughingly  answered 
in  popular  opinion,  by  the  fact  that  he  had  not  been  able  to  say 
half  so  many  bitter  things  about  Congress  as  Congress  had  said 
about  him ;  and  that,  as  the  elections  had  shown,  Congress  had  tri- 
umphed, and  turned  the  popular  contempt  and  ridicule  against  the 
President.  Besides,  the  offense  charged  against  the  President  had 
been  committed  nearly  two  years  before,  and  seemed  to  be  recalled 
now  for  popular  effect  in  the  construction  of  the  Articles  of  Im- 
peachment. This  charge  richly  deserved  the  satire  it  received  at 
the  hands  of  Judge  Curtis  when  he  spoke  of  "  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives erecting  itself  into  a  school  of  manners,  and  desiring 
the  judgment  of  the  Senate  whether  the  President  has  not  been 
guilty  of  an  indecorum ;  whether  he  has  spoken  properly  ? "  .  .  . 
"  Considering  the  nature  of  our  government,"  said  Judge  Curtis, 
"  and  the  experience  we  have  had  on  this  subject,  that  is  a  pretty 
lofty  claim ! " 

In  fact  there  was  but  one  charge  of  any  gravity  against  the 
President  —  that  of  violating  the  Tenure-of-office  Act.  But  on  this 


JUDGMENT  OF  EMINENT  LAWYERS.  379 

charge  there  was  a  very  grave  difference  of  opinion  among  those 
equally  competent  to  decide.  Mr.  Fessenden,  one  of  the  ablest  law- 
yers, if  not  indeed  the  very  ablest  that  has  sat  in  the  Senate  since 
Mr.  Webster,  believed  on  his  oath  and  his  honor  —  an  oath  that  was 
sacred  and  an  honor  that  was  stainless  —  that  the  President  had  a 
lawful  and  Constitutional  right  to  remove  Mr.  Stanton  at  the  time 
and  in  the  manner  he  did.  Mr.  Trumbull,  whose  legal  ability  had 
been  attested  by  his  assignment  to  the  chairmanship  of  the  Judiciary 
Committee,  believed  with  Mr.  Fessenden,  as  did  Mr.  Grimes  of 
Iowa,  one  of  the  strongest  members  of  the  Senate,  and  Mr.  Hender- 
son of  Missouri,  whose  legal  attainments  have  since  given  him  a  high 
professional  reputation.  Let  it  be  frankly  admitted  that  lawyers  of 
equal  rank  conscientiously  believed  in  the  President's  guilt.  This 
only  proves  that  there  was  ground  for  a  substantial  and  fundamental 
difference  of  opinion,  and  that  it  could  not  therefore  with  certainty 
be  charged  that  the  President,  "  unmindful  of  the  high  duties  of  his 
office,  did  this  act  in  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States."  This  was  the  very  question  in  dispute,  —  the  question  in 
regard  to  which  lawyers  of  eminent  learning  and  impartial  mind, 
members  of  the  Republican  party  and  zealous  opponents  of  the 
President's  policy,  radically  differed  in  judgment.  Opinions  of  dis- 
tinguished lawyers  on  the  Democratic  side  of  the  Senate,  like  Reverdy 
Johnson,  are  not  quoted,  because  partisan  motives  would  be  ascribed 
to  their  conclusions. 

Perhaps  the  best  test  as  to  whether  the  act  of  the  President  in 
removing  Mr.  Stanton  was  good  ground  for  impeachment,  would  be 
found  in  asking  any  candid  man  if  he  believes  a  precisely  similar 
act  by  Mr.  Lincoln,  or  General  Grant,  or  any  other  President  in 
harmony  with  his  party  in  Congress,  would  have  been  followed  by  im- 
peachment, or  by  censure,  or  even  by  dissent.  It  is  hardly  conceiv- 
able, nay,  it  is  impossible,  that  under  such  circumstances  the  slightest 
notice  would  be  taken  of  the  President's  action  by  either  branch  of 
Congress.  If  there  was  a  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  intent  and 
meaning  of  a  law,  the  general  judgment  in  the  case  supposed  would 
be  that  the  President  had  the  right  to  act  upon  his  own  conscientious 
construction  of  the  statute.  It  might  not  be  altogether  safe  to  con- 
cede to  the  Executive  the  broad  scope  of  discretion  which  General 
Jackson  arrogated  to  himself  in  his  celebrated  veto  of  the  Bank  Bill, 
when  he  declared  that  "  The  Congress,  the  Executive,  and  the  Court 
must  each  for  itself  be  guided  by  its  own  opinion  of  the  Constitution. 


380  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Each  public  officer  who  takes  an  oath  to  support  the  Constitution 
swears  that  he  will  support  it  as  he  understands  it,  and  not  as  it  is 
understood  by  others."  But  without  approving  the  extreme  doctrine 
which  General  Jackson  announced  with  the  applause  of  his  party,  it 
is  surely  not  an  unreasonable  assumption  that  in  the  case  of  a  statute 
which  has  had  no  judicial  interpretation  and  whose  meaning  is  not 
altogether  clear,  the  President  is  not  to  be  impeached  for  acting  upon 
his  own  understanding  of  its  scope  and  intent :  —  especially  is  he  not 
to  be  impeached  when  he  offers  to  prove  that  he  was  sustained  in  his 
opinion  by  every  member  of  his  Cabinet,  and  offers  further  to  prove 
by  the  same  honorable  witnesses  that  he  took  the  step  in  order  to 
subject  the  statute  in  dispute  to  judicial  interpretation. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  the  progress  of  the  trial  the  Managers  on 
the  part  of  the  House  and  the  counsel  of  the  President  proceeded 
upon  entirely  different  grounds  as  to  what  constituted  an  offense 
punishable  with  impeachment.  General  Butler,  who  opened  the 
case  against  the  President  with  circumspection  and  ability,  took 
care  to  exclude  the  idea  that  actual  crime  on  the  part  of  the  officer 
was  essential  to  justify  impeachment.  Speaking  for  all  the  Managers 
he  said,  "  We  define  an  impeachable  high  crime  or  misdemeanor  to 
be  one  in  its  nature  or  consequences  subversive  of  some  fundamental 
or  essential  principle  of  government  or  highly  prejudicial  to  the 
public  interest ;  and  this  may  consist  of  a  violation  of  the  Constitution, 
of  law,  of  an  official  oath,  or  of  duty,  by  an  act  committed  or  omitted  ;  or, 
without  violating  a  positive  law,  by  the  abuse  of  discretionary  powers  from 
improper  motives  or  for  any  improper  purpose"  This  of  course  would 
give  great  latitude  in  proceedings  against  the  President.  It  would 
challenge  his  discretion,  erect  sins  of  omission  into  positive  -offenses, 
and  make  inquest  of  his  motives  and  purposes.  There  has  not  been 
an  occupant  of  the  Executive  Chair  since  the  organization  of  the 
Government,  who  did  not  at  some  period  in  his  career  commit  an 
act  which  in  the  judgment  of  his  political  opponents  was  "  highly 
prejudicial  to  the  public  interest,"  and  therefore  if  his  opponents 
should  happen  to  be  in  the  majority  they  might  impeach  him,  simply 
for  disagreement  upon  an  issue  of  expediency  upon  which  men  equally 
competent  to  judge  might  reasonably  and  conscientiously  hold  differ- 
ent opinions.  This  was  in  effect  the  same  position  assumed  by 
Mr.  Thaddeus  Stevens,  that  "in  order  to  sustain  impeachment  under 
the  Constitution  it  is  not  necessary  to  prove  a  crime  as  an  indictable 
offense,  or  any  act  malum  in  se.  It  is  a  purely  political  proceeding." 


GENERAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  TRIAL.  381 

The  counsel  for  the  President  dissented  altogether  from  this  defi- 
nition of  the  grounds  of  Impeachment  as-  given  by  the  Managers. 
Judge  Curtis  declared  that  "  when  the  Constitution  speaks  of  trea- 
son, bribery,  and  other  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors,  it  refers  to 
and  includes  only  high  criminal  offenses  against  the  United  States, 
made  so  by  some  law  of  the  United  States  existing  when  the  acts 
complained  of  were  done.  .  .  .  Noscitur  a  sociis.  High  crimes  and 
misdemeanors !  so  high  that  they  belong  in  this  company  with  trea- 
son and  bribery"  The  position  of  Judge  Curtis  was  fortified  by  the 
fact  that  in  the  five  cases  of  Impeachment  tried  before  the  President 
was  accused  —  the  cases  of  Blount,  of  Pickering,  of  Chase,  of  Peck, 
and  of  Humphries  —  the  charges  preferred  by  the  House  involved 
criminality. 

Outside  of  professional  opinion  there  was  supposed  to  be  a  pop- 
ular demand,  so  far  as  the  Republican  party  represented  the  people, 
for  the  President's  conviction  —  a  demand  found  to  be  based,  when 
analyzed,  upon  other  acts  of  the  President  than  those  for  which  he 
was  arraigned  in  the  Articles  of  Impeachment.  The  people  in  this 
respect  followed  precisely  in  the  line  of  their  Representatives.  It 
was  certainly  not  a  praiseworthy  procedure  that  this  supposed  pop- 
ular wish  should  have  been  mentioned  at  all  as  an  argument  for 
conviction.  The  most  dignified  of  the  many  comments  which  this 
feature  of  the  trial  elicited  was  by  Senator  Fessenden,  in  the  official 
opinion  which  accompanied  his  vote :  —  "To  the  suggestion  that  pop- 
ular opinion  demands  the  conviction  of  the  President  on  these 
charges,  I  reply  that  he  is  not  now  on  trial  before  the  people,  but 
before  the  Senate.  In  the  words  of  Lord  Eldon,  upon  the  trial  of 
the  Queen,  4 1  take  no  notice  of  what  is  passing  out  of  doors,  because 
I  am  supposed  constitutionally  not  to  be  acquainted  with  it.  ... 
It  is  the  duty  of  those  upon  whom  a  judicial  task  is  imposed  to  meet 
reproach,  and  not  to  court  popularity.'  .  .  .  The  people  have  not 
taken  an  oath  to  do  impartial  justice  according  to  the  Constitution 
and  the  law.  I  have  taken  that  oath." 

The  trial  of  President  Johnson  is  the  most  memorable  attempt 
made  by  any  English-speaking  people  to  depose  a  sovereign  ruler  in 
strict  accordance  with  all  the  forms  of  law.  The  order,  dignity  and 
solemnity  which  marked  the  proceedings  may  therefore  be  recalled 
with  pride  by  every  American  citizen.  From  the  beginning  to  the 
end  there  was  no  popular  menace,  or  even  suggestion  of  disturbance 
or  violence,  let  the  trial  end  as  it  might.  If  the  President  had  been 


382  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

convicted  he  would  have  quietly  retired  from  the  Executive  Mansion 
and  Benjamin  F.  Wade,  President  of  the  Senate,  sworn  by  the  Chief 
Justice  in  the  presence  of  the  two  Houses  of  Congress,  would  have 
assumed  the  power  and  performed  the  duties  of  Chief  Magistrate 
of  the  Nation.  During  the  original  agitation  of  Impeachment  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  some  imprudent  expressions  had  been 
made  by  hot-headed  partisans,  in  regard  to  the  right  of  the  Pres- 
ident to  disperse  Congress  and  appeal  directly  to  the  people  to  vin- 
dicate his  title  to  his  office.  But  these  declarations  were  of  no 
weight  and  their  authors  would  have  promptly  retracted  them  in 
the  hour  of  danger. 

The  time  within  which  the  trial  of  the  President  was  comprised, 
from  the  presentation  of  the  charges  by  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives until  the  final  adjournment  of  the  Senate  as  a  Court  of  Im- 
peachment, was  eighty-two  days.  Within  that  period  the  amplest 
opportunity  was  afforded  to  submit  testimony  and  to  hear  the  pleas 
of  counsel.  The  gravity  of  the  procedure  was  fully  realized  by  all 
who  took  part  in  it,  and  no  pains  were  spared  to  secure  the  observ- 
ance of  every  Constitutional  requirement  to  the  minutest  detail.  In 
conserving  its  own  prerogatives  Congress  made  no  attempt  to  curtail 
the  prerogatives  of  the  President  during  his  trial.  The  army  and  the 
navy  were  under  his  control,  together  with  the  power  to  change  that 
vast  host  of  Federal  officers  and  employees  whose  appointment  does 
not  require  the  confirmation  of  the  Senate.  Confidence  in  the  reign 
of  law  was  so  absolute  that  no  one  ever  dreamed  it  possible  for  the 
President  to  resist  the  force  of  its  silent  decree  against  him  if  one 
more  voice  in  the  Senate  had  pronounced  him  guilty. 

The  trial  of  Warren  Hastings  is  always"  quoted  as  a  precedent  -of 
imposing  authority  and  consequence.  But  that  was  simply  the  ar- 
raignment of  a  subordinate  official,  upon  charges  of  peculation  and 
cruelty  —  misdemeanors  not  uncommon  with  the  Englishmen  of  that 
day  who  were  entrusted  with  Colonial  administration.  The  great 
length  of  the  Hastings  trial,  and  especially  the  participation  of 
Edmund  Burke  as  original  accuser  and  chief  manager,  have  given  it 
an  extraneous  importance  to  students  of  English  history  and  law. 
The  Articles  of  Impeachment,  drawn  by  Mr.  Burke,  were  presented 
at  the  bar  of  the  House  of  Lords  in  April,  1786.  They  were  so 
elaborate  as  to  fill  a  stately  octavo  volume  of  five  hundred  pages. 
Mr.  Burke's  opening  speech  was  not  made  for  two  years  thereafter, 
and  his  closing  plea  was  made  in  June  1794.  During  these  eight 


RESIGNATION  OF  MR.  STANTON.  383 

years  his  splendid  eloquence  was  the  admiration  and  pride  of  the 
English  people,  and  gave  to  the  arraignment  of  Hastings  an  extrinsic 
interest  far  beyond  its  real  importance.  It  bore  no  comparison  in  any 
of  its  essential  aspects  with  a  change  of  Rulership  in  a  Republic  of 
forty  millions  of  people.  Scarcely  an  incident  of  Hastings'  life  in 
India  would  be  known  to  the  popular  reader,  except  for  the  asso- 
ciation of  his  name  with  the  most  celebrated  period  of  Mr.  Burke's 
majestic  career.  Baron  Plassy,  a  far  greater  man  in  the  same  field 
of  achievement,  is,  compared  with  Hastings,  little  known  —  the  title 
not  being  remembered  even  by  the  mass  of  his  countrymen  to-day  as 
part  of  the  reward  to  Robert  Clive  for  founding  the  British  Empire 
in  India. 

But  the  importance  of  the  President's  Impeachment  does  not 
depend  upon  the  fame  of  his  accusers  or  upon  the  length  of  his  trial. 
The  case  in  itself  possesses  intrinsic  and  enduring  interest.  It  was 
not  affected  by  factitious  circumstances.  It  is  notable  especially 
because  of  the  extreme  tension  to  which  it  subjected  the  Consti- 
tution, and  the  attestation  it  affords  of  the  restraint  -which  a  free 
people  instinctively  impose  upon  themselves  in  times  of  public  excite- 
ment. It  will  be  studied  as  a  precedent,  or  as  a  warning,  by  the 
citizens  of  the  Great  Republic  during  the  centuries  through  which, 
God  grant,  it  may  pass  with  increasing  prosperity  and  renown.  And 
it  may  well  happen  that  in  the  crises  of  a  distant  future  the  mo- 
mentous trial  of  1868,  though  properly  resulting  in  acquittal  of  the 
accused,  will  be  recalled  as  demonstrating  the  ease  and  the  serenity 
with  which,  if  necessity  should  demand  it,  the  citizens  of  a  free 
country  can  lawfully  deprive  a  corrupt  or  dangerous  Executive  of 
the  office  he  has  dishonored  and  the  power  he  has  abused. 


Mr.  Stanton  promptly  resigned  his  post  when  the  Impeachment 
failed  and  returned  to  private  life  and  to  the  practice  of  his  profes- 
sion. He  was  accompanied  into  his  retirement  by  a  vote  of  thanks 
from  Congress  for  "  the  great  ability,  purity  and  fidelity  with  which 
he  had  discharged  his  public  duties  " ;  and  in  confirming  his  successor, 
the  Senate  adopted  a  resolution  that  Mr.  Stanton  was  not  legally 
removed,  but  had  relinquished  his  office.  He  was  broken  in  health 
and  very  keenly  disappointed  by  the  failure  of  the  Impeachment. 
He  supported  General  Grant  for  the  Presidency  and  made  one  or 


384  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

two  important  public  speeches  in  aid  of  his  election.  On  the  20th  of 
December,  1869,  he  was  appointed  by  President  Grant  an  Associate 
Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  For  many  years 
of  his  eminent  professional  life  this  high  judicial  position  was  the  one 
ambition  which  Mr.  Stanton  had  cherished.  But  its  realization  came 
too  late.  His  prolonged  labors,  his  anxieties  and  his  disappointments 
had  done  their  work,  and  on  the  24th  of  December,  five  days  after  he 
had  completed  his  fifty-fifth  year,  he  sank  to  his  grave,  after  herculean 
labors  for  the  safety  and  honor  of  his  country. 

General  John  M.  Schofield  was  nominated  by  the  President  as 
Mr.  Stanton's  successor  and  was  confirmed  by  the  Senate.  He  had 
an  unexceptionable  record  as  a  soldier,  was  a  man  of  spotless  per- 
sonal character,  and  possessed  of  sound  judgment  and  discretion. 
His  ability  for  civil  administration  had  been  tested  and  satisfactorily 
demonstrated  during  his  command  of  the  District  of  Virginia  in  the 
period  of  reconstruction,  and  also  in  a  certain  degree  during  the  war 
when  Mr.  Lincoln  entrusted  to  him  the  difficult  task  of  preserving 
loyal  ascendency  in  Missouri.  He  took  charge  of  the  War  Depart- 
ment at  a  difficult  and  critical  time,  but  his  administration  of  it 
was  in  all  respects  successful  and  received  the  commendation  of  fair- 
minded  men  in  all  parties. 

Immediately  after  his  acquittal  the  President  renominated  Mr. 
Stanbery  for  Attorney-General.  The  Senate,  in  a  spirit  of  resent- 
ment not  altogether  praiseworthy  or  intelligible,  rejected  him.  It 
was  rumored  that  Mr.  Stanbery's  previous  course  as  Attorney-Gen- 
eral "  in  construing  the  Reconstruction  Acts "  had  given  offense  to 
certain  senators.  No  reason,  however,  was  assigned  and  indeed  no 
good  reason  could  be  given,  for  this  personal  injustice  to  an  able 
lawyer  and  an  honorable  man.  He  was  simply  a  victim  to  the  politi- 
cal excitement  of  the  hour.  Upon  Mr.  Stanbery's  rejection  the 
President  nominated  Mr.  Evarts  to  his  first  official  position  under 
the  National  Government.  He  was  promptly  confirmed,  and,  it  need 
not  be  added,  discharged  the  duties  of  Attorney-General  with  eminent 
ability  and  with  a  popularity  which  tended  to  re-establish  in  some 
degree  those  relations  of  personal  courtesy  always  so  desirable  be- 
tween Congress  and  the  Executive  Departments. 


CHAPTER    XV. 

PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  OF  1868. — REPUBLICAN  NATIONAL  CONVENTION  AT  CHICAGO. 

—  GENERAL  GRANT  THE  CLEARLY  INDICATED  CANDIDATE  OF  HIS  PARTY.  —  CONTEST 
FOR  THE  VICE-PRESIDENCY.  —WADE,  COLFAX,  FENTON,  WILSON,  CURTIN.— SPIRITED 
BALLOTING.  —  COLFAX  NOMINATED.  —  PLATFORM.  —  DEMOCRATIC  NATIONAL  CONVEN- 
TION.—MEETS  IN   NEW  YORK,  JULY  4.  — NUMEROUS    CANDIDATES.  —  GEORGE   H. 
PENDLETON  MOST  PROMINENT.  —  AN  ORGANIZED  MOVEMENT   FOR  CHIEF  JUSTICE 
CHASE.  — His  ALLIANCE  WITH  THE  DEMOCRACY.  —  His  EAGERNESS  FOR  THE  NOMI- 
NATION.—His  FRIENDLY  RELATIONS  WITH  VALLANDIGH AM.— PRESIDENT  JOHNSON. 

—  SEEKS  DEMOCRATIC  INDORSEMENT. — MR.  AUGUST  BELMONT'S  OPENING  SPEECH. 

—  HORATIO  SEYMOUR  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  CONVENTION.  —  His  ARRAIGNMENT   OF 
THE  REPUBLICAN  PARTY.  —  CHARACTER  OF  HIS  MIND.  — THE  DEMOCRATIC  PLAT- 
FORM. —  FAVORS    PAYING    THE    PUBLIC    DEBT    IN    PAPER    MONEY.  —  DECLARES    THE 

RECONSTRUCTION  ACTS  TO  BE  USURPATIONS. — WADE  HAMPTON'S  PROMINENCE. 
—VARIOUS  NAMES  PRESENTED  FOR  THE  PRESIDENCY.  —  VARYING  FORTUNES  OF 
CANDIDATES.  —  SEYMOUR  NOMINATED.  —  THE  VICE-PRESIDENCY.  —  FRANK  BLAIR 
NOMINATED  BY  ACCLAMATION.  —  AGGRESSIVE  CAMPAIGN  ON  BOTH  SIDES.  —  MR. 
SEYMOUR'S  POPULAR  TOUR.  —  FINAL  RESULT.  —  GENERAL  GRANT'S  ELECTION. 

fTIHE  stirring  events  which  preceded  the  Presidential  campaign 
JL  of  1868  brought  both  parties  to  that  contest  with  aroused 
feeling  and  earnest  purpose.  The  passionate  struggle  of  which  Pres- 
ident Johnson  was  the  centre,  had  inspired  the  Republicans  with  an 
ardor  and  a  resolution  scarcely  surpassed  during  the  intense  period 
of  the  war.  The  failure,  on  the  16th  of  May,  to  find  the  President 
guilty  as  charged  in  the  Eleventh  Article  of  Impeachment,  was 
received  by  the  public  as  a  general  acquittal,  without  waiting  for  the 
vote  of  the  26th.  A  large  proportion  of  the  delegates  to  the  Repub- 
lican National  Convention  which  met  at  Chicago  on  the  20th  of  May, 
gathered  under  the  influence  of  keen  disappointment  at  the  Presi- 
dent's escape  from  what  they  believed  to  be  merited  punishment. 
Though  baffled  in  their  hope  of  deposing  the  man  whom  they  re- 
garded with  the  resentment  that  always  follows  the  political  apostate, 
they  were  none  the  less  animated  by  the  high  spirit  which  springs 
from  conscious  strength  and  power.  They  were  the  representatives 
of  an  aggressive  and  triumphant  party,  and  felt  that  though  suffering 
VOL.  II.  25  385 


386  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

an  unexpected  chagrin  they  were  moving  forward  with  certainty  to 
a  new  and  brilliant  victory.  The  chief  work  of  the  Convention  was 
determined  in  advance.  The  selection  of  General  Grant  as  the  can- 
didate for  the  Presidency  had  for  months  been  clearly  foreshadowed 
and  universally  accepted  by  the  Republican  party.  At  an  earlier 
stage  there  had  been  an  effort  to  direct  public  thought  towards  some 
candidate  who  was  more  distinctively  a  party  chief,  and  who  held 
more  pronounced  political  views;  but  public  sentiment  pointed  so 
unmistakably  and  irresistibly  to  General  Grant  that  this  effort  was 
found  to  be  hopeless  and  was  speedily  abandoned.  The  enthusi- 
asm for  General  Grant  was  due  to  something  more  than  the  mere 
fact  that  he  was  the  chief  hero  of  the  war.  It  rested  upon  broader 
ground  than  popular  gratitude  for  his  military  services  —  great  as 
that  sentiment  was.  During  the  conflict  between  Congress  and  the 
President,  General  Grant  had  been  placed  in  a  trying  position,  and 
he  had  borne  himself  with  a  discretion  and  dignity  which  deepened  the 
popular  confidence  in  his  sound  judgment  and  his  tact.  The  people 
felt  that  besides  the  great  qualities  he  had  displayed  in  war,  he  was 
peculiarly  fitted  to  lead  in  restoring  peace  and  the  reign  of  law. 

Though  the  main  work  of  the  Convention  was  simply  to  ratify  the 
popular  choice,  the  party  sent  many  conspicuous  men  as  delegates. 
Joseph  R.  Hawley,  William  Claflin,  Eugene  Hale,  George  B.  Loring, 
and  William  E.  Chandler  were  present  from  the  New-England  States. 
New  York  was  especially  strong  in  the  number  of  its  prominent  men. 
General  Daniel  E.  Sickles,  with  his  honorable  war  record,  Lyman 
Tremaine,  who  had  been  Attorney-General  of  the  State,  Charles  An- 
drews, since  its  Chief  Justice,  Moses  H.  Grinnell,  Chauncey  M. 
Depew,  Ellis  H.  Roberts,  Frank  Hiscock,  and  others  of  scarcely  less 
rank  made  up  the  notable  delegation.  Pennsylvania  sent  Colonel 
Forney  and  General  Harry  White,  while  Colonel  A.  K.  -McClure 
appeared  in  the  Convention  as  a  substitute.  Maryland  sent  John  A. 
J.  Creswell,  afterward  in  General  Grant's  Cabinet.  John  A.  Bingham 
came  from  Ohio.  The  Indiana  delegation  included  Richard  W. 
Thompson  and  Senator  Henry  S.  Lane.  John  A.  Logan  and  Emory 
A.  Storrs  represented  the  great  State  of  which  General  Grant  was  a 
citizen.  Governor  Van  Zandt  of  Rhode  Island,  Senator  Cattell  and 
Cortlandt  L.  Parker  of  New  Jersey,  Ex-Attorney-General  Speed  of 
Kentucky,  Carl  Schurz  and  Governor  Fletcher  of  Missouri,  added 
strength  and  character  to  the  roll  of  delegates. 

The  Convention  rapidly  completed  its  work,  being  in  session  but 


REPUBLICAN  NATIONAL  CONVENTION.  387 

two  days.  The  opening  speech  by  the  Chairman  of  the  National 
Committee,  Governor  Ward  of  New  Jersey,  was  short  and  pointed. 
He  expressed  the  dominant  thought  in  the  minds  of  all  when  he 
said:  "If,  as  indicated  by  the  unanimity  of  feeling  which  prevails 
here,  you  shall  designate  as  our  leader  the  great  Captain  of  the  age, 
whose  achievements  in  the  field  have  been  equaled  by  his  wisdom 
in  the  Cabinet,  the  Nation  will  greet  it  as  the  precursor  of  victory 
to  our  cause,  of  peace  to  the  Republic."  Carl  Schurz  was  selected 
as  temporary  chairman,  and  his  speech  reflected  the  prevalent  feel- 
ing of  all  Republicans.  He  exulted  in  the  great  achievements  of  the 
party,  now  freshly  recalled  in  its  first  National  Convention  since  the 
successful  close  of  the  war,  and  proclaimed  its  purpose  to  finish  and 
perfect  the  work  of  reconstructing  the  Union  on  the  broad  basis  of 
equal  rights. 

For  permanent  President  of  the  Convention  General  Sickles  and 
General  Hawley  had  both  been  prominently  mentioned  and  warmly 
advocated.  The  vote  between  them  in  the  committee  on  permanent 
organization  was  a  tie.  But  New  York  bent  every  thing  to  the  pur- 
pose of  nominating  Governor  Fenton  for  the  Vice-Presidency,  and 
feared  that  the  selection  of  General  Sickles  for  the  highest  honor 
of  the  Convention  might  prejudice  his  chances.  By  the  casting  vote 
of  Hamilton  Harris  of  Albany,  a  special  friend  of  Governor  Fenton 
and  a  man  of  marked  sagacity  in  political  affairs,  the  choice  fell  upon 
General  Hawley.  His  speech  on  taking  the  chair  was  earnest  and 
impressive.  He  briefly  reviewed  what  the  party  had  accomplished 
in  war  and  in  peace,  and  emphasized  the  obligation  of  crowning  these 
triumphs  with  the  permanent  establishment  of  equal  and  exact  jus- 
tice. He  was  especially  forcible  in  rebuking  the  current  financial 
heresies  and  in  insisting  that  the  full  demands  of  the  Nation's  honor 
should  be  scrupulously  observed.  "  For  every  dollar  of  the  national 
debt,"  he  declared,  "the  blood  of  a  soldier  is  pledged."  "Every 
bond,  in  letter  and  in  spirit,  must  be  as  sacred  as  a  soldier's  grave." 
As  these  patriotic  maxims  were  pronounced  by  General  Hawley,  the 
whole  Convention  broke  forth  in  prolonged  applause. 

The  platform,  reported  on  the  second  day,  succinctly  stated  the 
Republican  policy.  It  made  two  principles  conspicuous :  first,  equal 
suffrage ;  and  second,  the  maintenance  of  the  public  faith.  These 
were  the  pivots  on  which  the  political  controversy  of  the  year  turned. 
They  embraced  the  two  supreme  questions  left  by  the  war.  The 
one  involved  the  restoration  of  public  liberty,  in  harmony  with  pub- 


388  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

lie  safety,  in  the  lately  rebellious  States.  The  other  involved  the 
honor  of  the  Republic  in  observing  its  financial  obligations.  The 
Reconstruction  policy  rested  on  equal  suffrage  as  its  corner-stone, 
and  the  Convention  congratulated  the  country  on  its  established 
success,  as  shown  by  its  acceptance  already  in  a  majority  of  the 
Southern  States,  and  its  assured  acceptance  in  all.  Equal  suffrage 
was  still  regarded  however  rather  as  an  expedient  of  security  against 
disloyalty  than  as  a  measure  of  National  right,  rather  as  an  incident 
to  the  power  of  re-organizing  rebellious  communities  than  as  a  sub- 
ject of  National  jurisdiction  for  all  the  States. 

The  Fourteenth  Amendment  was  about  to  be  proclaimed,  and 
would  place  American  citizenship  under  Constitutional  protection. 
The  Fifteenth  Amendment,  ordaining  equal  political  and  civil  rights, 
had  not  yet  come.  In  this  period  of  transition  the  platform  asserted 
that  the  guarantee  of  suffrage  to  the  loyal  men  of  the  South  must  be 
maintained,  but  that  the  question  of  suffrage  in  the  loyal  States 
belonged  to  the  States  themselves.  This  was  an  evasion  of  duty 
quite  unworthy  of  the  Republican  party,  with  its  record  of  con- 
sistent bravery  through  fourteen  eventful  years.  It  was  a  mere 
stroke  of  expediency  to  escape  the  prejudices  which  negro  suffrage 
would  encounter  in  a  majority  of  the  loyal  States,  and  especially  in 
Indiana  and  California,  where  a  close  vote  was  anticipated.  The 
position  carried  with  it  an  element  of  deception,  because  every  intel- 
ligent man  knew  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  force  negro  suffrage 
on  the  Southern  States  by  National  authority,  and  leave  the  Northern 
States  free  to  exclude  it  from  their  own  domain.  It  was  an  extraor- 
dinary proposition  that  the  South,  after  all  the  demoralization  wrought 
by  the  war,  should  be  called  upon  to  exhibit  a  higher  degree  of  politi- 
cal justice  and  virtue  than  the  North  was  willing  to  practice. 

On  the  financial  issue  the  platform  was  earnest  and  emphatic.  It 
denounced  all  forms  of  repudiation  as  a  national  crime,  and  demanded 
the  payment  of  the  public  debt  in  the  utmost  good  faith,  according  to 
the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  the  law.  The  resolutions  reflected  uni- 
versal Republican  feeling  in  an  impassioned  arraignment  of  President 
Johnson.  At  the  same  time  they  commended  the  spirit  of  magna- 
nimity and  forbearance  with  which  those  who  had  taken  up  arms 
against  the  Union  were  received  into  fellowship  with  loyal  men,  and 
favored  the  removal  of  all  political  disabilities  as  rapidly  as  was  con- 
sistent with  public  safety. 

When  the  preliminary  business  of  the  Convention  had  been  con- 


NOMINATION  FOR  THE  VICE-PRESIDENCY.  389 

eluded,  John  A.  Logan,  in  a  vigorous  and  eloquent  speech,  presented 
the  name  of  General  Grant  for  President.  On  a  call  of  the  roll  the 
nomination  was  repeated  by  the  entire  Convention  without  a  dissent- 
ing voice.  The  announcement  of  his  unanimous  .nomination  was 
received  with  a  great  outburst  of  enthusiasm.  The  parallel  to  this 
unanimity  could  be  found  in  but  few  instances  in  our  political  his- 
tory, and  it  augured  well  for  the  success  of  the  canvass  in  which 
General  Grant  was  thus  made  the  standard-bearer. 

The  absence  of  any  contest  on  the  chief  nomination  imparted 
unusual  spirit  and  interest  to  the  struggle  for  the  Vice-Presidency. 
Three  candidates  were  urged  by  their  respective  friends  with  great 
zeal  and  earnestness.  Benjamin  F.  Wade  of  Ohio,  President  pro 
tempore  of  the  Senate,  was  already  acting  Vice-President.  If  the 
Impeachment  trial  had  ended  in  the  conviction  of  President  John- 
son, Mr.  Wade  would  have  succeeded  him  for  the  unexpired  term, 
and  from  this  coigne  of  vantage  would  doubtless  have  secured  the 
nomination  for  the  second  office.  The.  failure  of  Impeachment, 
though  fatal  to  his  success,  did  not  dissipate  the  support  which  his 
long  services  and  marked  fidelity  had  commanded,  without  any  of 
the  adventitious  aids  of  power.  He  had  entered'  the  Senate  seven- 
teen years  before  and  found  there  but  four  members  devoted  to  the 
cause  of  free  soil.  Seward,  Sumner,  Chase,  and  John  P.  Hale  had 
preceded  him.  Less  favored  than  these  senators  in  the  advantages  of 
early  life,  less  powerful  in  debate,  he  yet  brought  to  the  common 
cause  some  qualities  which  they  did  not  possess.  His  bluff  address, 
his  aggressive  temper,  his  readiness  to  meet  the  champions  of  slavery 
in  physical  combat  as  well  as  in  intellectual  discussion,  drew  to  him 
a  large  measure  of  popular  admiration. 

For  several  years  Governor  Fenton  had  been  rising  to  leadership 
among  New- York  Republicans.  His  political  skill  had  been  shown 
while  a  member  of  the  House,  in  forming  the  combination  which 
made  Galusha  A.  Grow  Speaker  of  the  Thirty-seventh  Congress. 
Though  not  conspicuous  in  debate  he  had  gained  a  high  reputation 
as  a  sagacious  counselor  and  a  safe  leader.  Of  Democratic  ante- 
cedents, he  had  never  been  in  favor  with  the  political  dynasty 
which  so  long  ruled  New  York,  and  of  which  Thurlow  Weed  was 
the  acknowledged  head.  With  his  conservative  views  that  consum- 
mate politician  could  not  keep  pace  with  his  party  during  the  war, 
and  thus  lost  the  mastery  which  he  had  so  long  held  without  dis- 
pute. Thereupon  Mr.  Fenton  quietly  seized  the  sceptre  which  Mr. 


390  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Weed  had  been  compelled  to  relinquish.  Elected  Governor  over 
Horatio  Seymour  in  1864,  he  was  re-elected  in  1866  over  John  T. 
Hoffman,  and  his  four  years  in  that  exalted  office  not  only  increased 
his  reputation  but  added  largely  to  his  political  power.  The  New- 
York  delegation  to  the  National  Convention  was  chosen  under  his 
own  eye  and  was  admirably  fitted  to  serve  its  purpose.  It  was  not 
only  earnest  in  its  loyalty  but  strong  in  character  and  ability.  It 
embraced  an  unusual  number  of  representative  men,  and  with  the 
favorable  estimate  which  Republicans  everywhere  held  of  Governor 
Fenton's  services  and  administration,  their  efforts  made  a  marked 
impression  upon  the  Convention. 

The  friends  of  Schuyler  Coif  ax  relied  less  on  thorough  organiza- 
tion and  systematic  work  than  upon  the  common  judgment  that  he 
would  be  a  fit  and  available  candidate.  He  was  then  at  the  height  of 
his  successful  career.  He  was  in  the  third  term  of  his  Speakership, 
and  had  acquitted  himself  in  that  exacting  place  with  ability  and 
credit.  Genial  and  cordial,  with  unfailing  tact  and  aptitude,  skillful 
in  cultivating  friendships  and  never  provoking  enmities,  he  had  in  a 
rare  degree  the  elements  that  insure  popularity.  The  absence  of  the 
more  rugged  and  combative  qualities  which  diminished  his  force  in 
the  stormy  struggles  of  the  House,  served  now  to  bring  him  fewer 
antagonisms  as  a  candidate. 

Beside  the  names  of  Wade,  Fenton,  and  Colfax,  two  or  three 
others  were  presented,  though  not  so  earnestly  urged  or  so  strongly 
supported.  Senator  Wilson  of  Massachusetts  had  warm  friends  and 
was  fourth  in  the  rank  of  candidates.  Pennsylvania  presented 
Governor  Curtin,  but  with  a  divided  and  disorganized  force  which 
crippled  at  the  outset  the  effort  in  his  behalf.  The  delegation  was 
nominally  united  for  him,  but  fourteen  of  the  number  were  friends 
of  Senator  Cameron,  and  were  at  heart  hostile  to  Governor  Curtin. 
Mr.  J.  Donald  Cameron,  son  of  the  senator,  appeared  in -person  as 
a  contesting  delegate.  The  State  Convention  had  assumed  the 
authority  to  name  the  delegates  from  the  several  Congressional  dis- 
tricts. Mr.  Cameron  denied  that  the  State  Convention  had  any  such 
prerogative.  He  presented  himself  with  the  Dauphin  credentials  as 
the  champion  of  the  right  of  district  representation.  He  was  ad- 
mitted to  nothing  more  than  an  honorary  seat,  but  the  opposition  of 
himself  and  his  friends  had  the  desired  effect  in  preventing  the 
candidacy  of  Governor  Curtin  from  becoming  formidable. 

On  the  first  ballot  Mr.  Wade  led  with  147  votes.     Mr.  Fenton 


SCHUYLER  COLFAX  FOR  VICE-PRESIDENT.  391 

was  next  with  126,  Mr.  Colfax  followed  with  125,  and  Mr.  Wilson 
with  119.  Mr.  Curtin  had  51,  and  the  remainder  were  scattering. 
Several  of  the  minor  candidates  immediately  dropped  out,  and  on  the 
second  ballot  the  vote  for  Wade  was  raised  to  170,  for  Colfax  to  145, 
and  for  Fen  ton  to  144.  The  third  and  fourth  ballots  showed  nearly 
equal  gains  for  Wade  and  Colfax,  while  Fenton  made  no  increase. 
All  other  names  were,  withdrawn.  Wade  had  been  weakened  by  the 
fact  that  after  the  first  ballot  his  own  State  of  Ohio  had  given  several 
votes  for  Colfax,  to  whom  the  tide  now  turned  with  great  strength. 
Iowa  was  the  first  State  to  break  solidly.  Pennsylvania  turned  her 
vote  to  Colfax  instead  of  Wade  whose  friends  had  confidently 
counted  upon  it.  Other  changes  rapidly  followed,  until  the  fifth 
ballot,  as  finally  announced,  showed  541  for  Colfax,  38  for  Wade, 
and  69  for  Fenton.  The  result  was  received  with  general  and  hearty 
satisfaction,  and  the  Convention  adjourned  with  undoubting  faith  in 
a  great  victory  for  Grant  and  Colfax.  General  Grant's  brief  letter  of 
acceptance  followed  within  a  week,  and  its  key-note  was  found  in 
the  memorable  expression,  "  Let  us  have  peace  !  "  It  was  spoken  in 
a  way  and  came  from  a  source  which  gave  it  peculiar  strength  and 
significance. 


The  Democratic  National  Convention  of  1868  was  invested  with 
remarkable  interest,  less  from  any  expectation  that  it  would  seriously 
contest  and  jeopard  Republican  ascendency,  than  from  the  several 
personal  issues  which  entered  into  it,  and  the  audacious  public 
policies  which  would  be  urged  upon  it.  The  general  drift  of  the 
party  was  clear  and  unmistakable,  but  its  personal  choice  and  the 
tone  of  its  declarations  would  determine  how  bold  a  stand  it  would 
take  before  the  country.  Would  it  openly  proclaim  the  doctrine  of 
paying  the  public  debt  in  depreciated  paper  money,  and  emphasize 
its  action  by  nominating  Mr.  George  H.  Pendleton,  the  most  distinct 
and  conspicuous  champion  of  the  financial  heresy  ?  Would  it  attempt 
a  discussion  and  review  of  its  tendency  and  designs,  and  make  what 
would  approach  a  new  departure,  in  appearance  if  not  in  fact,  by 
going  outside  of  its  own  ranks  and  nominating  Chief  Justice  Chase  ? 
Would  the  recreancy  of  President  Johnson  to  his  own  party  and  his 
hope  of  Democratic  support  find  any  considerable  response  ?  And 
aside  from  the  issue  of  virtually  repudiating  the  public  debt,  would 
the  party  now  re-assert  its  hostile  and  revolutionary  attitude  towards 


392  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

the  well-nigh  completed  work  of  Reconstruction?  These  various 
possibilities  left  a  degree  of  uncertainty  which  surrounded  the 
Convention  with  an  atmosphere  of  curious  expectation. 

The  movement  most  deliberately  planned  and  most  persistently 
pressed  was  that  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Pendleton.  The  Greenback 
heresy  had  sprung  up  with  rapid  growth.  The  same  influence  which 
had  resisted  the  issue  of  legal-tender  notes  during  the  war,  when 
they  were  deemed  vital  to  National  success,now  demanded  that  they 
be  used  to  pay  the  public  debt,  though  depreciated  far  below  the 
standard  of  coin.  "  The  same  currency  for  the  bond-holder  and  the 
plough-holder"  was  a  favorite  cry  in  the  mouths  of  many.  This 
plausible  and  poisonous  fallacy  quickly  took  root  in  .Ohio,  whose 
political  soil  has  often  nourished  rank  and  luxuriant  outgrowth  of 
Democratic  heresies,  and  it  came  to  be  known  distinctively  as  "  The 
Ohio  Idea."  The  apt  response  of  the  Republicans  was,  the  lest  cur- 
rency for  both  plough-holder  and  bond-holder!  Mr.  Pendleton  was 
peculiarly  identified  with  the  Ohio  Idea.  .  If  not  its  author  he  had 
been  its  zealous  advocate,  and  had  become  widely  known  as  its  rep- 
resentative. The  policy  which  typified  the  easy  way  of  paying  debts 
spread  through  the  West  and  South,  and  brought  to  Mr.  Pendleton 
a  wide  support.  His  popular  address  and  attractive  style  of  speech 
increased  his  strength  as  a  candidate,  and  his  partisans  came  to  the 
Convention  under  the  lead  of  able  politicians,  with  the  only  move- 
ment which  was  well  organized  and  which  had  positive  and  concen- 
trated force  behind  it. 

While  the  Pendleton  canvass  was  earnestly,  openly,  and  skil- 
fully promoted  it  was  also  adroitly  opposed.  The  keen  and  crafty 
politicians  of  New  York  were  neither  demonstrative  nor  frank  in 
indicating  their  course,  but  they  were  watchful,  sinuous,  and  efficient. 
Their  plot  was  carefully  concealed.  They  were  ready  to  have  a  New- 
York  candidate  thrust  upon  them  by  other  sections.  If  called  upon 
to  look  outside  of  their  own  State  and  select  from  the  list  of  avowed 
aspirants,  they  modestly  suggested  Mr.  Hendricks  of  Indiana,  a  friend 
and  co-laborer  of  Mr.  Pendleton.  But  the  favorite  scheme  in  the 
inner  councils  of  the  New- York  Regency,  was  to  strike  beyond  the 
Democratic  lines  and  nominate  Chief  Justice  Chase.  This  proposi- 
tion was  little  discussed  in  public,  but  was  deeply  pondered  in  private 
by  influential  members  of  the  Democratic  party.  Mr.  Chase  himself 
presented  no  obstacle  and  no  objection.  He  cherished  an  eager  ambi- 
tion to  be  President.  He  had  desired  and  sought  the  Republican 


POSITION  OF  CHIEF  JUSTICE  CHASE.  393 

nomination  in  1864,  and  though  the  overwhelming  sentiment  for  Mr. 
Lincoln  had  soon  driven  him  from  the  field,  the  differences  he  had 
encouraged  led  to  his  retirement  from  the  Cabinet.  His  elevation  to 
the  highest  judicial  office  in  the  land  did  not  subdue  or  even  check 
his  political  aspirations.  For  a  time  he  looked  forward  with  hope  to 
the  Republican  nomination  in  1868 ;  but  when  it  became  evident  that 
none  but  General  Grant  could  be  the  chosen  leader,  his  thoughts 
evidently  turned  towards  the  Democratic  Convention. 

Certain  circumstances  made  the  possible  selection  of  the  Chief 
Justice  as  the  Democratic  candidate  a  less  inconsistent  procedure 
than  his  long  antagonism  to  the  party  might  at  first  suggest.  In  the 
beginning  of  his  political  career  Judge  Chase  had  leaned  towards 
the  Democratic  party,  and  at  a  more  recent  period  had  been  promoted 
to  the  Senate  by  the  aid  of  Democrats.  He  had  consistently  advo- 
cated the  fundamental  principles  which  originally  distinguished  the 
party.  Recent  circumstances  had  separated  him  from  active  sym- 
pathy with  the  Republicans  and  placed  him  in  opposition  to  the  policy 
of  some  of  its  leading  measures.  He  had  taken  occasion  to  criticise 
what  he  called  the  military  governments  in  the  Southern  States. 
Other  causes  had  tended  to  separate  him  from  the  Republican  party 
and  to  commend  him  to  the  Democracy.  When  he  took  his  seat  on 
the  bench  of  the  Supreme  Court  a  majority  of  the  judges  belonged 
to  the  Democratic  party,  and  with  them  he  soon  acquired  personal 
intimacy  and  confidential  relations.  He  had  secured  many  friends  in 
the  South  by  joining  in  the  opinions  pronounced  by  Mr.  Justice 
Field  for  the  court  in  1867,  in  regard  to  the  test-oaths  prescribed  in 
the  Missouri  constitution,  and  also  in  regard  to  the  test-oath  of 
lawyers  known  as  the  case  ex  parte  Garland.  All  the  impressions 
touching  his  Democratic  tendencies  had  been  deepened  and  increased 
during  the  Impeachment  trial.  It  was  evident  that  he  was  not  in 
harmony  with  the  Republican  senators,  and  he  took  no  pains  to  con- 
ceal his  willingness  to  thwart  them,  so  far  as  was  consistent  with  his 
duty,  in  the  position  of  Presiding  officer. 

This  demonstration  of  political  sympathy,  made  manifest  through 
judicial  channels,  had  brought  Judge  Chase  and  the  Democratic 
managers  nearer  together.  Both  realized  however  that  a  complete 
change  of  position  would  defeat  its  own  purpose.  On  one  important 
point  indeed  Judge  Chase  never  wavered  and  was  unwilling  to  com- 
promise. In  all  utterances  and  all  communications  he  firmly  main- 
tained the  principle  of  universal  suffrage  as  the  primary  article  of  his 


394  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

political  creed.  If  the  Democrats  should  accept  him  they  must 
accept  this  dectrine  with  him.  Six  weeks  prior  to  the  Convention 
Mr.  August  Belmont  in  a  private  letter  advised  him  that  the  leading 
Democrats  of  New  York  were  favorable  to  his  nomination,  and  urged 
upon  him  that  with  the  settlement  of  the  slavery  question,  the  issue 
which  separated  him  from  the  Democratic  party  had  disappeared. 
Judge  Chase  replied  that  the  slavery  question  had  indeed  been  set- 
tled, but  that  in  the  question  of  Reconstruction  it  had  a  successor 
which  partook  largely  of  the  same  nature.  He  had  been  a  party  to  the 
pledge  of  freedom  for  the  enfranchised  race,  and  the  fulfillment  of  that 
pledge  required,  in  his  judgment,  "  the  assurance  of  the  right  of  suf- 
frage to  those  whom  the  Constitution  has  made  freemen  and  citizens." 

Not  long  after  this  correspondence  the  Chief  Justice  caused  a 
formal  summary  of  his  political  views  to  be  published,  with  the 
evident  purpose  of  gaining  the  good  will  of  the  "  American  Democ- 
racy." The  summary  touched  lightly  on  most  of  the  controverted 
political  questions,  and  contained  nothing  to  which  the  Democrats 
would  not  have  readily  assented  except  the  declaration  for  universal 
suffrage.  To  this  policy  all  Democratic  acts  and  expressions  had  been 
uncompromisingly  hostile,  and  the  sentiment  of  the  party  might  not 
easily  be  brought  to  accept  a  change  which  was  at  once  so  radical  and 
so  repugnant  to  its  temper  and  its  training.  Judge  Chase  hoped  to 
induce  its  acquiescence  and  believed  that  such  an  advance  might  open 
the  way  to  success.  But  his  tenacity  on  this  point  was  undoubtedly 
an  obstacle  to  his  nomination.  Another  difficulty  was  the  strenuous 
opposition  of  the  Ohio  delegates  and  their  zealous  preference  for 
Mr.  Pendleton.  Superadded  to  all  these  objections  was  a  popular 
aversion  to  any  thing  which  looked  like  a  •  subordination  of  judicial 
trust  to  political  aims.  Incurring  this  reproach  through  what  seemed 
to  be  inordinate  ambition,  Judge  Chase  had  forfeited  something  of 
the  strength  to  secure  which  could  be  the  only  motive  for  his  nomina- 
tion by  his  old  political  opponents. 

Notwithstanding  all  these  apparent  obstacles,  there  was  among 
the  most  considerate  men  of  the  Convention  a  settled  purpose  to 
secure  the  nomination  of  the  Chief  Justice.  They  intended  to  place 
him  before  the  people  upon  the  issues  in  regard  to  which  he  was  in 
harmony  with  the  Democratic  party,  and  omit  all  mention  of  issues 
in  regard  to  which  there  was  a  difference  of  view.  This  was  a 
species  of  tactics  not  unknown  to  political  parties,  and  might  be  used 
with  great  effect  if  Mr.  Chase  should  be  the  nominee.  The  astute 


POSITION  OF  CHIEF  JUSTICE  CHASE.  395 

men  who  advocated  his  selection  saw  that  the  great  need  of  the  De- 
mocracy was  to  secure  a  candidate  who  had  been  unquestionably 
loyal  during  the  war,  and  who  at  the  same  time  was  not  offensive 
to  Southern  feeling.  The  prime  necessity  of  the  party  was  to  regain 
strength  in  the  North  —  to  recover  power  in  that  great  cordon  of 
Western  States  which  had  for  so  many  years  prior  to  the  rebellion 
followed  the  Democratic  flag.  The  States  that  had  attempted  seces- 
sion were  assured  to  the  Democracy  as  soon  as  the  party  could  be 
placed  in  National  power,  and  to  secure  that  end  the  South  would 
be  wise  to  follow  the  lead  of  New  York  as  obediently  as  in  former 
years  New  York  had  followed  the  lead  of  the  South.  It  was  a  con- 
test which  involved  the  necessity  of  stooping  to  conquer. 

The  Chief  Justice  was,  so  far  as  his  position  would  permit,  active 
in  his  own  behalf.  He  was  in  correspondence  with  influential  Demo- 
crats before  the  Convention,  and  in  a  still  more  intimate  degree  after 
the  Convention  was  in  session.  On  the  4th  of  July  he  wrote  a  sig- 
nificant letter  to  a  friend  who  was  in  close  communication  with  the 
leading  delegates  in  New  York.  His  object  was  to  soften  the  hos- 
tility of  the  partisan  Democrats,  especially  of  the  Southern  school. 
Referring  to  the  policy  of  Reconstruction,  he  said,  "I  have  always 
favored  the  submission  of  the  questions  of  re-organization  after  dis- 
organization by  war  to  the  entire  people  of  the  whole  State."  This 
was  intended  to  assure  Southern  men  that  if  he  believed  in  the  jus- 
tice of  giving  suffrage  to  the  negro,  he  did  not  believe  in  the  justice 
of  denying  it  to  the  white  man. 

The  strangest  feature  in  Judge  Chase's  strange  canvass  was  the 
apparent  friendship  of  Vallandigham,  and  the  apparent  reliance  of 
the  distinguished  candidate  upon  the  strength  which  the  notorious 
anti-war  Democrat  could  bring  to  him.  Vallandigham  had  evi- 
dently been  sending  some  kind  messages  to  the  Chief  Justice,  who 
responded  while  the  Democratic  Convention  was  in  session,  in  these 
warm  words :  "  The  assurance  you  give  me  of  the  friendship  of  Mr. 
V.,  affords  me  real  satisfaction.  He  is  a  man  of  whose  friendship 
one  may  well  be  proud.  Even  when  we  have  differed  and  separated 
most  widely,  I  have  always  admired  his  pluck  and  consistency,  and 
have  done  full  justice  to  his  abilities  and  energies."  The  plain 
indication  was  that  Vallandigham,  who  had  come  to  the  Convention 
as  an  earnest  friend  of  Pendleton,  was  already  casting  about  for  an 
alternative  candidate  in  the  event  of  Pendleton's  failure,  and  was 
considering  the  practicability  of  nominating  the  Chief  Justice. 


396  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

President  Johnson  had  also  aspired  to  the  Democratic  candidacy. 
Ambitious,  untiring,  and  sanguine,  this  hope  of  reward  had  nerved 
him  in  the  bitter  quarrel  with  his  own  party.  The  fate  of  Tyler  and 
Fillmore  had  no  terrors  and  no  lessons  for  one  who  eagerly  and 
blindly  sought  a  position  which  would  at  once  gratify  his  ambition 
and  minister  to  his  revenge.  He  was  using  all  the  powers  of  the 
Executive  in  a  vain  fight  to  obstruct  and  baffle  the  steadily  advancing 
Republican  policy.  The  Democrats,  instead  of  following  a  settled 
chart  of  principles,  were  making  the  cardinal  mistake  of  supporting 
him  in  all  his  tortuous  course  of  assumptions  and  usurpations,  and 
it  was  not  strange  that  he  should  expect  them  to  turn  towards  him 
in  choosing  a  leader  to  continue  the  contest.  But  it  is  an  old  maxim, 
repeatedly  illustrated,  that  while  men  are  ready  to  profit  by  the 
treason,  they  instinctively  detest  the  traitor.  Mr.  Johnson  had  em- 
bittered the  party  which  he  had  betrayed,  without  gaining  the  confi- 
dence of  the  party  he  had  sought  to  serve.  By  his  attempt  to 
re-establish  the  political  power  of  the  elements  which  had  carried 
the  South  into  rebellion  he  had  acquired  some  friends  in  that  section, 
but  his  intemperate  zeal  had  so  greatly  exasperated  public  feeling  at 
the  North  that  even  those  who  applauded  his  conduct  were  unwilling 
to  take  the  hazard  of  his  candidacy. 

The  re-awakened  opposition  and  designs  of  the  Southern  leaders 
were  shown  in  the  active  participation  of  several  of  the  conspicuous 
Confederate  chiefs  in  the  Convention.  When  the  last  preceding 
National  Convention  was  held  they  were  in  arms  against  the  Gov- 
ernment. This  was  the  first  occasion  upon  which  they  could  re- 
appear in  the  arena  of  National  politics.  It  had  been  suggested  to 
them  from  friendly  sources  that  while  the  memory  of  their  part  in  the 
bloody  strife  was  still  so  fresh  it  would  be  prudent  for  them  to  remain 
in  the  background,  but  they  vigorously  resented  this  proposed  exclu- 
sion. General  Forrest  of  Tennessee  published  an  indignant  letter, 
in  which  he  referred  to  "  the  counsel  of  timid  men  "  that  those  who 
had  prominently  borne  the  flag  of  rebellion  should  abstain  from  any 
share  in  political  action.  He  vehemently  repelled  the  suggestion. 
Instead  of  exacting  only  secondary  places  he  boldly  asserted  the 
highest  claims.  He  appealed  to  the  people  and  directly  urged  upon 
his  associates,  uthat  we,  who  are  the  true  representatives  of  the 
greater  portion  of  the  true  Constitutional  men  of  the  States,  shall 
not  exclude  ourselves  from  the  Democratic  Convention."  This  spirit 
found  a  hearty  response,  and  a  large  number  of  Confederate  officers 


DEMOCRATIC  NATIONAL  CONVENTION  1868.  397 

appeared  in  the  National  council  of  the  party ;  of  whom  the  foremost 
were  Generals  Forrest,  Wade  Hampton,  John  B.  Gordon,  and  Wil- 
liam Preston. 

The  Convention  met  in  New  York  on  the  fourth  day  of  July. 
Besides  those  active  in  the  rebel  armies,  there  were  several  leaders 
who  had  been  conspicuous  in  the  civil  councils  of  the  Confederacy. 

A.  H.  Garland  of  Arkansas,  Benjamin  H.  Hill  of  Georgia,  Zebulon 

B.  Vance  of  North  Carolina,  and  R.  Barnwell  Rhett  of  South  Caro- 
lina were  the  most  widely  known.     Louisiana  sent  two  delegates 
whom  she  has  since  advanced  to  the  Senate  —  Randall  L.  Gibson 
and  James  B.  Eustis.     Thomas  S.  Bocock,  fourteen  years  a  repre- 
sentative in  the  National  Congress,  afterwards  Speaker  of  the  Con- 
federate Congress,  came  from  Virginia.      Montgomery  Blair,  who 
like  his  more  impulsive  brother  Frank  had  fallen  back  into  the  party 
which  seemed  to  be  the  natural  home  of  the  Blair  family,  came  from 
Maryland  as  the  colleague  of  William  Pinckney  Whyte.    New  York 
presented  a  strong  array  of  delegates,  among  whom  the  most  con- 
spicuous were  Horatio  Seymour,  Samuel  J.  Tilden,  Henry  C.  Murphy, 
Augustus  Schell,  and  Francis  Kernan.      Several  of  the  regularly 
chosen  delegates  from  Ohio  gave  way  in  order  that  the  State  might, 
in  Mr.  Pendleton's  interest,  secure  greater  parliamentary  and  debat- 
ing talent ;  and  to  this  end,  Allen  G.  Thurman,  Clement  L.  Vallan- 
digham,  George  E.  Pugh,  and  George  W.  Morgan  appeared  on  the 
floor  of  the  Convention.     Pennsylvania  sent  ex-Senator  Bigler  and 
Judge  George  W.  Woodward,  whose  ability  was  equaled  by  his  rank 
Bourbonism.     William  R.  Morrison  and  William  A.  Richardson  of 
Illinois,  William  W.  Eaton  of  Connecticut,  Josiah  G.  Abbott  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, James  A.  Bayard  of  Delaware,  John  G.  Carlisle  of  Ken- 
tucky, Joseph  E.  McDonald  and  Daniel  W.  Voorhees  of  Indiana, 
were  names  familiar  in  Democratic  councils. 

Mr.  August  Belmont's  lurid  speeches  had  become  the  accepted 
signal-guns  of  national  Democratic  conventions,  and  he  did  not  disap- 
point expectation  on  this  occasion.  His  prophetic  vision  and  historic 
recital  were  even  more  far-reaching  and  alarming  than  before.  He 
drew  a  dark  picture  of  evils  which  he  charged  upon  the  Republican 
party,  and  then  proceeded :  "  Austria  did  not  dare  to  fasten  upon 
vanquished  Hungary,  nor  Russia  to  impose  upon  conquered  Poland, 
the  ruthless  tyranny  now  inflicted  by  Congress  on  the  Southern 
States.  Military  satraps  are  invested  with  dictatorial  power,  over- 
riding the  decisions  of  the  courts  and  assuming  the  functions  of  the 


398  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

civil  authorities ;  and  now  this  same  party  which  has  brought  all 
these  evils  upon  the  country  comes  again  before  the  American  people 
asking  for  their  suffrages !  And  whom  has  it  chosen  for  its  candi- 
date? The  General  commanding  the  armies  of  the  United  States. 
Can  there  be  any  doubt  as  to  the  designs  of  the  Radicals  if  they 
should  be  able  to  keep  their  hold  on  the  reins  of  government  ?  They 
intend  Congressional  usurpation  of  all  the  branches  and  factions  of  the 
Government,  to  be  enforced  by  the  bayonet  of  a  military  despotism." 

Apparently  it  never  occurred  to  Mr.  Belmont  that  each  succeeding 
sentence  of  his  speech  carried  with  it  its  own  disproof.  With  loud 
voice  and  demonstrative  manner,  speaking  in  public  before  a  multi- 
tude of  people,  with  his  words  certain  to  be  quoted  in  the  press 
on  account  of  the  accident  of  his  position,  Mr.  Belmont  denounced 
the  policy  of  our  Government  as  more  tyrannical  than  that  of  Russia 
or  Austria.  What  did  Mr.  Belmont  suppose  would  have  been  his  fate 
if  on  the  soil  of  Russia  or  Austria  he  had  attempted  the  slightest  de- 
nunciation of  the  policy  of  those  empires  ?  How  long  would  he  have 
remained  outside  prison  walls  if  he  had,  in  either  of  those  countries, 
ventured  upon  a  tithe  of  the  unrestrained  vituperation  which  he 
safely  indulged  in  here  ?  In  his  visions  he  now  saw  General  Grant 
upholding  a  Congressional  usurpation  with  bayonets.  Four  years 
before,  he  saw  in  Mr.  Lincoln's  election  "  the  utter  disintegration  of 
our  whole  political  and  social  system  amid  bloodshed  and  anarchy." 
Mr.  Belmont  had  evidently  not  proved  a  true  prophet  and  did  not 
aspire  even  to  be  a  trustworthy  historian. 

Mr.  Henry  M.  Palmer  of  Wisconsin,  who  was  chosen  temporary 
chairman,  did  not  delay  the  Convention,  and  the  organization  was 
speedily  completed  by  the  election  of  Governor  Seymour  as  perma- 
nent president.  He  had  filled  the  same  position  in  the  convention 
of  1864.  He  was  destined  to  hold  a  still  more  important  relation  to 
the  present  body,  but  that  was  not  yet  foreseen.  His  admirers 
looked  to  him  as  a  political  sage,  who  if  not  less  partisan  than  his 
associates  was  more  prudent  and  politic  in  his  counsels.  No  other 
leader  commanded  so  large  a  share  of  the  confidence  and  devotion  of 
his  party.  No  other  equaled  him  in  the  art  of  giving  a  velvety 
touch  to  its  coarsest  and  most  dangerous  blows,  or  of  presenting  the 
work  of  its  adversaries  in  the  most  questionable  guise.  It  was  his 
habit  to  thread  the  mazes  of  economic  and  fiscal  discussion,  and  he 
was  never  so  eloquent  or  apparently  so  contented  as  when  he  was 
painting  a  vivid  picture  of  the  burdens  under  which  he  imagined  the 


DEMOCRATIC  NATIONAL  CONVENTION  1868.  399 

country  to  be  suffering,  or  giving  a  fanciful  sketch  of  what  might 
have  been  if  Democratic  rule  had  continued.  From  the  beginning 
of  the  war  he  had  illustrated  the  highest  accomplishments  of  political 
oratory  in  bewailing,  like  the  fabled  prophetess  of  old,  the  coming 
woes  —  which  never  came.  In  his  address  on  the  present  occasion 
he  arraigned  the  Republican  party  for  imposing  oppressive  taxes,  for 
inflicting  upon  the  country  a  depreciated  currency,  and  for  enforcing 
a  military  despotism.  Like  all  the  other  speakers  he  affected  to  see 
a  serious  menace  in  the  nomination  of  General  Grant.  Referring  to 
the  Republican  platform  and  candidate  he  said,  "Having  declared 
that  the  principles  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  should  be 
made  a  living  reality  on  every  inch  of  American  soil,  they  put  in 
nomination  a  military  chieftain  who  stands  at  the  head  of  that  system 
of  despotism  which  crushes  beneath  its  feet  the  greatest  principles 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence."  And  with  this  allusion  he 
proceeded  to  condemn  an  assumed  military  rule  with  all  its  asserted 
evils. 

Extreme  as  was  the  speech  of  Mr.  Seymour,  it  was  moderate  and 
conservative  in  spirit  compared  with  other  displays  and  other  proceed- 
ings of  the  Convention.  The  violent  elements  of  the  Democratic 
party  obtained  complete  mastery  in  the  construction  of  the  platform. 
They  presented  in  the  resolutions  the  usual  declarations  on  many 
secondary  questions,  together  with  an  elaborate  and  vehement  arraign- 
ment of  Republican  rule.  But  the  real  significance  of  the  new  Demo- 
cratic creed  was  embodied  in  two  salient  and  decisive  propositions. 
The  first  was  the  declaration  "  that  all  the  obligations  of  the  Govern- 
ment, not  payable  by  their  express  terms  in  coin,  ought  to  be  paid  in  law- 
ful money"  This  was  a  distinct  adoption  of  the  Greenback  heresy. 
The  movement  to  nominate  Mr.  Pendleton  did  not  succeed  in  its  per- 
sonal object,  but  it  did  succeed  in  embodying  its  ruling  thought  in 
the  Democratic  creed.  It  proved  to  be  the  guiding  and  mastering 
force  of  the  Convention.  The  greenback  issue  went  there  with  the 
positive,  resolute  support  of  a  powerful  candidate,  and  of  a  formidable 
array  of  delegates  who  knew  precisely  what  they  wanted.  It  was 
organized  under  a  name  and  had  the  strength  of  a  personality. 
There  was  opposition,  but  it  was  not  coherent,  organized  or  well  led. 
In  fact  the  platform  was  expressly  framed  to  fit  Mr.  Pendleton ;  and 
if,  as  often  happens,  the  champion  and  the  cause  did  not  triumph 
together,  he  compelled  his  party  to  commit  itself  fully  and  unreserv- 
edly to  his  doctrine. 


400  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

The  second  vital  proposition  related  to  the  policy  and  Acts  of 
Reconstruction.  If  Chief  Justice  Chase  was  to  be  nominated,  the 
party  must  accept  the  broad  principle  of  universal  suffrage  or  he 
must  abandon  his  lifelong  professions.  But  universal  suffrage, 
especially  if  ordained  by  National  authority,  was  irreconcilable  with 
Democratic  traditions  and  Democratic  prejudices.  The  Democrats 
had  uniformly  maintained  that  the  right  of  suffrage  was  a  question 
which  came  within  the  political  power  of  the  States  and  did  not 
belong  to  the  National  jurisdiction.  They  denied  that  the  States  had 
in  any  degree,  even  by  rebellion,  forfeited  their  prerogatives  ex- 
changed their  relations.  They  insisted  that  nothing  remained  but  to 
recognize  them  as  restored  to  their  old  position.  In  framing  the 
present  platform  they  re-affirmed  this  doctrine,  under  the  declaration 
that  "  any  attempt  of  Congress,  on  any  pretext  whatever,  to  deprive 
any  State  of  its  right  (to  regulate  suffrage),  or  interfere  with  its  exer- 
cise, is  a  flagrant  usurpation  of  power,  which  cannot  find  any  warrant 
in  the  Constitution."  This  broad  assertion  was  designed  to  deny 
even  the  right  of  Congress  to  make  impartial  suffrage  in  the  revised 
constitutions  a  condition  precedent  to  the  re-admission  of  the  rebel- 
lious States  to  representation.  But  the  platform  did  not  stop  here. 
With  a  bolder  sweep  it  declared  "  that  we  regard  the  Reconstruction 
Acts  of  Congress  as  usurpations,  unconstitutional,  revolutionary,  and 
void"  This  extreme  proposition,  deliberately  adopted,  was  calcu- 
lated to  produce  a  profound  public  impression.  It  was  not  a  mere 
challenge  of  the  policy  or  rightfulness  of  the  Reconstruction  Acts ; 
it  was  not  a  mere  pledge  of  opposition  to  their  progress  and  comple- 
tion ;  but  it  logically  involved  their  overthrow,  with  the  subversion 
of  their  results,  in  case  the  Democratic  party  should  acquire  the 
power  to  enforce  its  principles  and  .to  execute  its  threats. 

The  import  of  this  bold  declaration  receives  additional  light  from 
the  history  of  its  genesis  and  adoption.  Its  immediate  paternity 
belonged  to  Wade  Hampton  of  South  Carolina.  In  a  speech  at 
Charleston,  within  two  weeks  from  the  adjournment  of  the  Conven- 
tion, General  Hampton  recounted  the  circumstances  which  attended 
its  insertion  in  the  platform,  and  proudly  claimed  it  as  his  own  plank. 
He  was  himself  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Resolutions,  and  took 
an  active  part  in  its  deliberations.  All  the  members,  he  said,  agreed 
that  the  control  of  suffrage  belonged  to  the  States;  but  General 
Hampton  himself  contended  that  the  vital  question  turned  on  what 
were  the  States.  In  order  that  there  might  be  no  room  for  dispute 


DEMOCRATIC  NATIONAL  CONVENTION  1868.  401 

he  proposed  that  the  platform  should  specifically  say  "  the  States  as 
they  were  before  1865."  To  this  however  some  of  the  members 
objected  as  impolitic  and  calculated  to  raise  distrust,  and  it  was 
accordingly  dropped.  General  Hampton  then  proposed  to  insert  the 
declaration  that  the  "Reconstruction  Acts  are  unconstitutional,  revo- 
lutionary, and  void;"  and  the  manner  in  which  this  suggestion 
was  received  is  given  by  General  Hampton  himself:  "When  I  pre- 
sented that  proposition  every  member,  and  the  warmest  were  from  the 
North,  came  forward  and  pledged  themselves  to  carry  it  out."  He 
further  reported  to  his  people  that  the  Democratic  leaders  declared 
their  "  willingness  to  give  us  every  thing  we  could  desire ;  but  they 
begged  us  to  remember  that  they  had  a  great  fight  to  make  at  the 
North,  and  they  therefore  besought  us  not  to  load  the  platform  with 
a  weight  that  they  could  not  carry  against  the  prejudices  which  they 
had  to  encounter.  Help  them  once  to  regain  the  power,  and  then  they 
would  do  their  utmost  to  relieve  the  Southern  States  and  restore  to  us  the 
Union  and  the  Constitution  as  it  had  existed  before  the  war" 

This  declaration  received  still  further  emphasis  from  at  least  one 
of  the  nominations  to  which  the  Convention  was  now  ready  to  pro- 
ceed. The  New- York  delegation,  which  was  believed  to  be  friendly 
to  Chief  Justice  Chase,  had  determined  to  mask  itself  for  the  present 
behind  a  local  candidate,  and  it  chose  Sanford  E.  Church  for  that 
purpose.  Pennsylvania,  whose  ultimate  design  was  less  certain,  put 
forward  Asa  Packer  in  the  same  way.  James  E.  English  of  Connec- 
ticut, Joel  Parker  of  New  Jersey,  and  several  minor  candidates, 
were  presented  as  local  favorites.  The  first  ballot  verified  the  claims 
of  Mr.  Pendleton's  friends,  and  showed  him  to  be  decisively  in  the 
lead,  though  still  far  short  of  the  number  necessary  to  nominate. 
He  had  105,  while  Andrew  Johnson  had  65,  Judge  Church  34, 
General  Hancock  33,  Packer  26,  English  16,  with  the  remainder 
scattering.  President  Johnson  had  a  higher  vote  than  was  expected, 
but  after  the  first  ballot  it  immediately  and  rapidly  declined.  On 
the  second  ballot  Pendleton  fell  off  to  99,  but  recovered  on  the  third, 
rising  to  119,  and  thereafter  slowly  advancing.  The  first  day  of 
voting,  which  was  the  third  of  the  Convention,  ended  after  six  ballots 
without  any  material  change  or  decisive  indication. 

The  name  of  Mr.  Hendricks  of  Indiana  had  been  brought  forward 
just  at  the  close  of  the  third  day  with  thirty  votes,  and  at  the  open- 
ing of  the  following  day  he  immediately  developed  more  strength. 
The  adroit  use  of  his  name,  devised  by  the  New- York  regency,  was 

Voi,.  IL  26 


402  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

fatal  to  Mr.  Pendleton.  Coming  from  the  adjoining  State  Mr.  Hen- 
dricks  divided  a  section  on  which  the  Ohio  candidate  relied.  A 
majority  of  the  Indiana  delegation  deserted  to  his  banner.  New 
York,  with  an  air  of  gratified  surprise,  withdrew  Church  and  voted 
solidly  for  Hendricks.  Pendleton  reached  his  highest  vote  of  156} 
on  the  eighth  ballot  and  thenceforward  steadily  declined.  Mean- 
while Hancock  had  been  gaining  as  well  as  Hendricks.  South  Caro- 
lina, Virginia,  and  several  other  States  changed  to  his  support.  Then 
Illinois  broke  from  Pendleton  and  cast  half  her  vote  for  Hendricks. 
On  the  twelfth  ballot  the  announcement  of  }  a  vote  from  California 
for  Chief  Justice  Chase  was  received  with  a  great  and  prolonged  out- 
burst of  cheering.  It  was  suspected  that  a  single  delegate  from  the 
Pacific  coast  had  cast  the  vote  at  the  instigation  of  the  New- York 
managers,  in  order  to  test  the  sense  of  the  galleries  as  well  as  of 
the  Convention.  The  day  closed  with  the  eighteenth  ballot,  on 
which  Hancock  had  144},  Hendricks  87,  and  Pendleton  56}.  With 
such  an  apparent  lead  after  so  many  ballots,  the  nomination  of 
General  Hancock  on  the  ensuing  day  would,  under  ordinary  circum- 
stances, have  been  reckoned  as  a  probable  result.  But  it  was  not 
expected.  It  was  indeed  against  the  logic  of  the  situation  that  a 
Democratic  Convention  could  at  that  time  select  a  distinguished 
Union  general,  of  conservative  record  and  cautious  mind,  for  a  Presi- 
dential candidate.  General  Hancock's  name  was  in  fact  used  only 
while  the  actual  contestants  of  the  Convention  were  fencing  for 
advantageous  position  in  the  final  contest. 

The  outlook  for  Mr.  Hendricks  was  considered  flattering  by  his 
immediate  supporters,  but  to  the  skilled  political  observer  it  was  evi- 
dent that  the  figures  of  the  eighteenth  ballot  gave  no  assurance  to  the 
friends  of  any  candidate.  After  the  adjournment  of  the  Convention, 
and  throughout  the  night  that  followed,  calculation  and  speculation 
took  every  shape.  The  delegations  from  New  York  and  Ohio  ab- 
sorbed the  interest  of  the  politicians  and  the  public.  The  two  dele- 
gations were  playing  at  cross-purposes  —  each  trying  to  defeat  the 
designs  of  the  other,  and  each  finding  its  most  available  candidate  in 
the  State  of  the  other.  The  tactics  of  New  York  had  undoubtedly 
defeated  Pendleton,  and  the  same  men  were  now  planning  to  nomi- 
nate Chief  Justice  Chase.  The  leading  and  confidential  friends  of 
Mr.  Pendleton  were  resolved  that  the  New  York  plot  should  not 
succeed,  and  that  Mr.  Chase  should  not,  in  any  event,  be  the  candi- 
date. In  a  frame  of  mind  which  was  half  panic,  half  reason,  they 


DEMOCRATIC  NATIONAL  CONVENTION  1868.  403 

concluded  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  defeat  the  Chief  Justice  if 
his  name  should  be  placed  before  the  Convention  by  the  united  dele- 
gation of  New  York  speaking  through  the  glowing  phrases  of  Mr. 
Seymour,  who,  as  it  was  rumored,  would  next  morning  leave  the 
chair  for  that  purpose.  It  was  concluded,  therefore,  in  the  consulta- 
tions of  Mr.  Pendleton's  friends,  that  the  movement  should  be  antici- 
pated by  proposing  the  name  of  Mr.  Seymour  himself.  The  consul- 
tations in  which  these  conclusions  were  reached  were  made  up  in 
large  part  of  the  aggressive  type  of  Western  Democrats,  who  had 
been  trained  to  political  fighting  under  the  lead  of  Stephen  A. 
Douglas.  Among  the  most  active  and  combative  was  Washington 
McLean  of  the  Cincinnati  Enquirer.  It  was  this  class  of  Democrats 
that  finally  rendered  the  nomination  of  the  Chief  Justice  impossible. 

On  the  following  morning  (of  the  last  day  of  the  Convention,  as 
it  proved)  the  Ohio  delegation  took  the  first  and  most  important 
step,  in  formally  withdrawing  the  name  of  Mr.  Pendleton.  The  vot- 
ing was  then  resumed,  and  the  nineteenth  and  twentieth  ballots 
showed  a  slight  loss  for  Hancock,  and  a  corresponding  gain  for 
Hendricks.  On  the  twenty-first  ballot  Hancock  had  135i,  and  Hen- 
dricks  132 ;  with  48£  divided  among  minor  candidates.  At  this 
point  the  Ohio  delegation,  having  been  absent  in  conference,  entered 
the  hall,  and  amid  a  hush  of  expectation  and  interest  proposed  the 
name  of  Horatio  Seymour.  Mr.  Seymour  had  been  frequently  men- 
tioned, and  would  have  been  formidable  from  the  first  if  he  had 
permitted  the  use  of  his  name,  but  he  had  invariably  met  the  propo- 
sition with  the  answer  that  he  could  under  no  circumstances  become 
a  candidate.  He  now  repeated  this  statement  from  the  chair,  but 
Ohio  insisted  and  New  York  assented.  With  a  whirl  of  excitement 
all  the  States  followed,  and  the  nomination  was  made  on  the  twenty- 
second  ballot  by  a  unanimous  vote.  Mr.  Seymour  had,  no  doubt, 
been  sincere  in  declining  to  be  a  candidate ;  but  the  prolonged 
balloting  had  produced  great  anxiety  among  the  delegates,  and  the 
pressure  had  at  last  come  in  a  form  which  he  could  not  resist. 

The  ticket  was  completed  without  delay.  Just  prior  to  the  Con- 
vention General  Frank  Blair  had  written  a  remarkable  letter  to 
Colonel  Brodhead,  one  of  the  Missouri  delegates.  General  Blair's 
name  had  been  mentioned  as  a  Presidential  candidate,  and  in  this 
letter  he  defined  his  position.  He  insisted,  as  the  supreme  issue,  that 
the  Reconstruction  Acts  and  their  fruits  must  be  overthrown.  How 
they  should  be  overthrown  he  thus  indicated :  "  There  is  but  one  way 


404  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

to  restore  the  Government  and  the  Constitution,  and  that  is  for  the 
President  to  declare  these  Acts  null  and  void,  compel  the  army  to 
undo  its  usurpations  at  the  South,  dispossess  the  carpet-bag  State 
governments,  allow  the  white  people  to  re-organize  their  own  govern- 
ments and  elect  senators  and  representatives."  General  Blair  con- 
tended that  this  was  "  the  real  and  only  question,"  and  that  until 
this  work  was  accomplished  "  it  is  idle  to  talk  of  bonds,  greenbacks, 
the  public  faith,  and  the  public  credit."  This  letter,  as  will  be  noted, 
harmonized  in  thought  and  in  language  with  the  plank  which  Wade 
Hampton  had  inserted  in  the  platform,  and  its  audacious  tone  com- 
mended its  author  to  those  who  had  been  potential  in  committing  the 
Convention  to  this  extreme  position.  General  Preston  of  Kentucky, 
who  had  won  his  stars  in  the  Confederate  army,  presented  General 
Blair  for  Vice-President.  General  Wade  Hampton,  distinguished  in 
the  same  cause,  seconded  it,  and  the  nomination  was  made  by  accla- 
mation. 

The  Democratic  party  thus  determined,  through  its  platform  and 
partially  through  its  candidates,  to  fight  its  battle  on  the  two  issues 
of  paying  the  debt  in  depreciated  paper  currency  and  overthrowing 
Reconstruction.  Other  questions  practically  dropped  out.  The 
whole  discussion  of  the  canvass  turned  on  these  two  controlling 
propositions.  No  violence  of  design  which  the  Republicans  imputed 
to  their  adversaries  exceeded  their  open  avowals.  The  greater  pos- 
itiveness  of  General  Blair,  the  keener  popular  interest  in  the  South- 
ern question  and  the  broader  realization  of  its  possible  dangers,  made 
the  issue  on  Reconstruction  overshadow  the  other.  The  utterances 
of  Southern  leaders  confirmed  its  superior  importance  in  the  public 
estimate.  The  jubilant  expressions  of  Wade  Hampton  at  Charleston 
have  already  been  given.  In  a  speech  at  Atlanta,  Robert  Toombs 
declared  that  "  all  these  Reconstruction  Acts,  as  they  are  called,  these 
schemes  of  dissolution,  of  violence  and  of  tyranny,  shall  no  longer 
curse  the  statute-book  nor  oppress  the  free  people  of  the  country ; 
these  so-called  governments  and  legislatures  which  have  been  estab- 
lished in  our  midst  shall  at  once  be  made  to  vacate.  The  conven- 
tion at  New  York  appointed  Frank  Blair  specially  to  oust  them." 
Howell  Cobb  and  Benjamin  H.  Hill  also  made  incendiary  speeches 
during  the  canvass,  proclaiming  their  confidence  in  the  practical 
victory  of  those  who  had  waged  the  Rebellion  ;  and  Governor  Vance 
of  North  Carolina  boasted  that  all  they  had  lost  when  defeated  by 
Grant  they  would  regain  when  they  triumphed  with  Seymour. 


PRESIDENTIAL  CANVASS  OF  1868.  405 

It  is  not  probable  that  the  Democrats  could,  by  any  policy,  have 
achieved  success  in  this  contest.  The  prestige  of  Grant's  great  fame 
and  the  momentum  given  to  the  Republican  party  by  his  achieve- 
ments during  and  immediately  after  the  war,  would  have  defeated 
any  opposition,  however  skillful.  But  had  Governor  Seymour  him- 
self framed  the  platform  on  which  he  was  to  stand,  and  had  he 
been  free  from  the  burden  and  the  embarrassment  of  Blair's  impru- 
dent and  alarming  utterances,  his  greater  sagacity  and  adroitness 
would  have  insured  a  more  formidable  battle.  As  it  was,  the 
rash  action  of  the  Democratic  Convention  made  it  reasonably  clear 
from  the  beginning  that  the  ticket  was  doomed  to  defeat.  The 
progress  of  the  canvass  strengthened  this  impression  ;  the  Democracy 
was  placed  everywhere  on  the  defensive ;  its  own  declarations  shotted 
every  gun  that  was  aimed  against  it;  and  its  orators  and  organs 
could  neither  make  effective  reply  nor  divert  public  attention  from 
its  fatal  commitment. 

The  Democrats  however  made  a  strenuous  contest  and  sought  to 
counterbalance  the  weakness  of  their  national  contest  by  strong 
State  tickets.  In  Indiana  Mr.  Hendricks  was  nominated  for  Gov- 
ernor, and  it  was  hoped  that  the  influence  of  his  name  would  secure 
the  advantage  of  success  in  the  preliminary  October  struggle.  In 
Pennsylvania  a  vigorous  canvass  was  conducted  under  the  skillful 
management  of  William  A.  Wallace.  But  all  these  efforts  were 
unavailing.  The  October  elections  clearly  presaged  Republican  vic- 
tory. The  Republicans  carried  Pennsylvania,  in  spite  of  surprising 
and  questionable  Democratic  gains  in  Philadelphia ;  they  held  Ohio 
by  a  satisfactory  majority;  and  in  Indiana,  Conrad  Baker  was  elected 
Governor  over  Mr.  Hendricks.  With  this  result  in  the  October 
States  the  November  battle  could  not  be  doubtful. 

The  Democratic  leaders  however  did  not  yet  surrender  the  field. 
They  made  one  more  energetic  effort  to  snatch  the  victory  which 
seemed  already  in  the  grasp  of  their  adversaries.  But  their  counsels 
were  divided.  One  element  proposed  to  try  heroic  surgery  and 
cut  off  the  diseased  member.  While  the  echoes  of  the  October 
verdict  were  still  resounding,  the  New-York  World,  the  leading  Met- 
ropolitan organ  of  the  Democratic  party,  in  a  series  of  inflammatory 
articles  demanded  that  General  Blair  should  be  withdrawn  from  the 
ticket.  This  disorganizing  demonstration  met  with  little  favor  in 
the  ranks  of  the  party,  and  only  served  as  a  confession  of  weakness 
without  accomplishing  any  good.  A  more  significant  and  better 


406  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

advised  movement  was  that  of  Governor  Seymour  himself.  He  had 
thus  far  borne  no  public  part  in  the  campaign,  but  he  now  took  the 
field  in  person  to  rally  the  broken  cohorts  of  his  party  and  if  pos- 
sible recover  the  lost  ground.  Up  to  this  time  General  Blair, 
through  his  self-assertion  and  his  bold  proclamation  of  Democratic 
designs,  had  been  the  central  figure  of  the  canvass.  It  was  now 
determined  that  Blair  should  go  to  the  rear  and  that  Governor  Sey- 
mour should  go  to  the  front  and  make  a  last  and  desperate  effort  to 
change  the  line  of  battle. 

He  started  the  week  following  the  October  elections,  and  went 
through  Western  New  York,  Ohio,  Illinois,  and  Pennsylvania ;  end- 
ing his  tour  only  with  the  close  of  the  National  canvass.  Delivering 
at  least  one  extended  address  each  day  at  some  central  point,  and 
speaking  frequently  by  the  way,  his  journey  fastened  the  attention 
of  the  country  and  amply  illustrated  his  versatile  and  brilliant  intel- 
lectual powers.  No  man  was  more  seductive  in  appeal,  or  more  im- 
pressive in  sedate  and  stately  eloquence.  .With  his  art  of  persuasion 
he  combined  rare  skill  in  evading  difficult  questions  while  preserving 
an  appearance  of  candor.  His  speeches  were  as  elusive  and  illusive 
as  they  were  smooth  and  graceful.  In  his  present  series  of  argu- 
ments he  labored  to  convince  the  country  that  if  the  Democrats 
elected  the  President  they  would  still  be  practically  powerless,  and 
that  apprehension  of  disturbance  and  upheaval  from  their  success 
was  unfounded.  He  sought  also  to  draw  the  public  thought  away 
from  this  subject  and  give  it  a  new  direction  by  dwelling  on  the  cost 
of  government,  the  oppression  of  taxes,  the  losses  from  the  disordered 
currency  and  the  various  evils  that  had  followed  the  trials  and  perils 
through  which  the  country  had  passed.  But  it  was  not  in  the  power 
of  any  man  to  change  the  current  of  public  feeling.  The  popular 
judgment  had  been  fixed  by  events  and  by  a  long  course  of  concur- 
rent evidences,  and  no  single  plea  or  pledge  could  shake  it.  The 
election  resulted  in  the  success  of  General  Grant.  Virginia,  Missis- 
sippi, and  Texas,  in  which  Reconstruction  was  not  yet  completed, 
did  not  choose  electors.  Of  the  remaining  thirty-four  States  Mr. 
Seymour  carried  but  eight.  General  Grant's  majority  on  the  popular 
vote  was  309,584.  Of  the  electors  he  had  214  and  Mr.  Seymour 
had  80. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

REPUBLICAN  VICTORY  OF  1868  ANALYZED. — MB.  SEYMOUR'S  STRENGTH  UNEXPECTEDLY 
GREAT. —ASTOUNDING  DEFECTION  OF  CERTAIN  STATES.— DEMOCRATIC  VICTORY  IN 
NEW  YORK,  NEW  JERSEY,  AND  OREGON.  — EVIL  OMENS.  —  DEMOCRATIC  VICTORY 
IN  LOUISIANA.  —  WON  BY  FRAUD  AND  VIOLENCE.  —  THE  FIGURES  EXAMINED.  —  AC- 
TION OF  CONGRESS  THEREON.  —  FRAUD  SUSPECTED  IN  GEORGIA.  —  DEMOCRATIC  DUTY 
UNPERFORMED.  —  IMPARTIAL  SUFFRAGE.  —  VARIOUS  PROPOSITIONS.  —  AMENDMENT 
TO  THE  CONSTITUTION.  —  MR.  HENDERSON  OF  MISSOURI.  —  MR.  STEWART  OF  NEVADA. 

—  MR.  GARRETT  DAVIS. — PROCEEDINGS  IN  THE  HOUSE.  —  SPEECH  OF  MR.  BOUT- 
WELL. —  ANSWERED  BY  MR.  BECK  AND  MR.  ELDRIDGE.  —  PASSAGE  OF  AMENDMENT 
BY  HOUSE.  —  ACTION  THEREON  IN  SENATE.  —  AMENDMENT  OF  MR.  WILSON.  —  PROPO- 
SITION  OF   MR.   MORTON   AND   MR.    BUCKALEW.  —  DISAGREEMENT  OF   THE   Two 
BRANCHES.  —  CONFERENCE    COMMITTEE.  —  FIFTEENTH   AMENDMENT   REPORTED.  — 
PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.  —  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT  NOW  MODI- 
FIED. —  ITS  EFFECT  AND  POTENCY  LESSENED.  —  ITS  FAILURE  TO  REMOVE  EVILS. 

—  GREAT  VALUE  OF  THE  THREE  AMENDMENTS.  —  THEIR  ASSURED  ENFORCEMENT.  — 
HONOR  TO  THEIR  AUTHORS.  — LESSON  TAUGHT  BY  MR.  LINCOLN.  — ITS  SIGNIFICANCE. 

"TTTHILE  the  result  of  the  Presidential  election  of  1868  was, 
V  V  upon  the  record  of  the  electoral  votes,  an  overwhelming 
victory  for  the  Republican  party  and  its  illustrious  candidate,  certain 
facts  tended  to  qualify  the  sense  of  gratulation  and  triumph  on  the 
part  of  those  who  give  serious  study  to  the  progress  and  results  of 
partisan  contests.  It  was  the  first  Presidential  election  since  the  close 
of  the  war,  and  the  candidates  represented  in  sharp  and  definite  out- 
line the  antagonistic  views  which  had  prevailed  among  Northern  men 
during  the  period  of  the  struggle.  General  Grant  was  the  embodi- 
ment of  the  war  feeling,  and  presented  in  his  own  person  the  spirit 
of  the  contest  for  the  Union  and  the  evidence  of  its  triumph.  The 
Democratic  candidate,  if  not  open  to  the  charge  of  personal  disloy- 
alty, had  done  much  as  Governor  of  New  York  to  embarrass  the 
National  Administration  in  the  conduct  of  the  war,  and  would  per- 
haps have  done  more  but  for  the  singular  tact  and  address  with  which 
Mr.  Lincoln  had  prevented  an  open  quarrel  or  even  a  serious  conflict 
of  authority.  Mr.  Seymour  was  indeed  unpleasantly  associated  in 
the  public  mind  with  the  riot  which  had  been  organized  in  the  city 

407 


408  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

of  New  York  against  the  enforcement  of  the  draft.  He  had  been  a 
great  favorite  of  the  Peace  party,  and  at  the  most  critical  point  in 
the  civil  struggle  he  had  presided  over  a  National  Convention  which 
demanded  that  the  war  should  cease. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  was  not  altogether  re-assuring  to  the 
ardent  loyalists  of  the  country,  that  the  city  of  New  York,  whose 
prosperity  depended  in  so  great  a  degree  upon  the  preservation  of 
the  Union,  should  now  give  Mr.  Seymour  a  majority  of  more  than 
sixty  thousand  over  General  Grant,  and  that  the  Empire  State,  which 
would  cease  to  be  Imperial  if  the  Union  ceased  to  exist,  should  in  a 
popular  contest  defeat  General  Grant  by  fully  ten  thousand  votes. 
New  Jersey  made  an  equally  discouraging  record  by  giving  Mr.  Sey- 
mour a  majority  of  three  thousand.  The  Pacific  coast,  whose  progress 
and  prosperity  depended  so  largely  upon  the  maintenance  of  the 
Union,  presented  an  astonishing  result,  —  California  giving  General 
Grant  a  majority  of  only  514,  while  Oregon  utterly  repudiated  the 
great  leader  and  gave  her  electoral  vote  for  Mr.  Seymour.  Indiana, 
in  the  test  vote  of  the  October  election  for  governor,  was  carried  for 
the  Republicans  by  only  961 ;  Ohio  gave  a  smaller  majority  in  the 
hour  of  National  victory  than  she  had  given  during  any  year  of  the 
civil  struggle,  while  Pennsylvania  at  the  same  election  gave  the  party 
but  ten  thousand  majority.  In  the  city  and  county  of  Philadelphia 
the  Democrats  actually  had  a  majority  of  nearly  two  hundred  votes. 
The  Republican  majorities  in  the  three  States  were  considerably  in- 
creased in  the  November  election  by  the  natural  falling  off  of  the 
Democratic  vote,  but  the  critical  and  decisive  battle  had  been  fought 
in  each  State  in  October.  It  was  a  very  startling  fact  that  if  Mr. 
Seymour  had  received  the  electoral  vote  of  the  solid  South  (which 
afterwards  came  to  be  regarded  either  as  the  rightful  inheritance  or 
the  fraudulent  prerogative  of  the  Democratic  party),  he  would,  in 
connection  with  the  vote  he  received  in  the  North,  have  had  a 
majority  over  General  Grant  in  the  Electoral  College.  Considering 
the  time  of  the  election,  considering  the  record  and  the  achievements 
of  the  rival  candidates,  the  Presidential  election  of  1868  must  be 
regarded  as  the  most  remarkable  and  the  most  unaccountable  in  our 
political  annals. 

The  result  was  not  comforting  to  the  thoughtful  men  who  in- 
terpreted its  true  significance  and  comprehended  the  possibilities  to 
which  it  pointed.  Of  the  reconstructed  States  (eight  in  number) 
General  Grant  received  the  electoral  votes  of  six,  —  North  Carolina, 


THE  PRESIDENTIAL  VOTE  OF  1868.  409 

South  Carolina,  Tennessee,  Alabama,  Arkansas,  and  Florida.  A  full 
vote  was  secured  in  each,  and  the  lawfulness  and  fairness  of  the 
result  under  the  system  of  Reconstruction  were  not  questioned. 
The  vote  of  Georgia  was  disputed  on  account  of  some  alleged  irregu- 
larity in  her  compliance  with  the  Acts  of  Reconstruction,  and  the 
suspicion  that  the  Presidential  election  was  not  fairly  conducted. 
But  in  Louisiana  there  was  no  moral  doubt  that  violence  and  dis- 
order had  done  their  evil  work.  The  result  in  the  State  was  declared 
to  be  in  favor  of  Mr.  Seymour.  The  subject  was  brought  before 
Congress,  and  the  counting  of  the  votes  of  these  States  was  chal- 
lenged; but  as  the  alleged  irregularity  in  Georgia  and  the  alleged 
fraud  in  Louisiana  had  not  been  legally  investigated,  Congress 
(Republican  at  the  time  by  a  large  majority  in  both  branches) 
declined  to  exclude  them  from  the  electoral  count. 

There  wras  great  dissatisfaction  on  the  part  of  a  considerable 
number  of  Republicans  in  Congress  with  the  determination  to  admit 
the  vote  of  Louisiana  without  some  qualifying  record  or  explanation. 
In  the  House  General  Schenck  offered  a  resolution,  declaring  that 
"  the  vote  of  the  State  was  counted  because  no  proof  was  formally 
submitted  to  sustain  the  objections  thereto."  General  Shanks  of 
Indiana  offered  a  much  more  decisive  resolution,  declaring  that  "in 
the  opinion  of  the  House  the  acceptance  of  the  electoral  vote  of 
Louisiana  will  encourage  the  criminal  practice  of  enforcing  elections 
in  the  States  lately  in  rebellion,  and  involves  the  murder  of  thousands 
of  loyal  people."  The  rule  of  the  House  required  unanimous  con- 
sent to  admit  these  resolutions,  and  they  were  strenuously  objected 
to  by  Fernando  Wood,  Charles  A.  Eldridge,  and  other  leading  Demo- 
crats of  the  House. 

In  the  Senate  Mr.  Morton  of  Indiana  submitted  a  resolution, 
declaring  that  "  while  there  is  reason  to  believe  from  common  report 
and  information  that  the  late  Presidential  election  in  Louisiana  was 
carried  by  force  and  fraud,  still  there  being  no  legal  evidence  before 
the  Senate  on  that  subject  the  electoral  vote  of  Louisiana  ought  to 
be  counted."  No  debate  being  allowed  under  the  rule  regulating  the 
proceedings  of  the  Senate  in  regard  to  the  count  of  the  electoral 
vote,  the  resolution  was  defeated.  It  received  however  the  support 
of  twenty-four  Republican  senators,  some  of  them  among  the  most 
prominent  members  of  the  body.  Mr.  Sumner,  Mr.  Chandler,  Mr. 
Conkling,  Mr.  Cameron,  Mr.  Morton,  Mr.  Morgan,  and  Mr.  Morrill 
of  Vermont  were  among  those  who  thought  some  record  should  be 


410  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

made  of  the  Senate's  knowledge  of  the  frauds  in  Louisiana,  even  if 
they  were  unable  on  strictly  legal  grounds  to  reject  her  electoral  vote. 
Other  Republican  senators  evidently  thought,  as  they  were  unable 
legally  to  reject  the  vote,  it  was  not  wise  to  make  any  record  on  the 
question. 

Subsequent  investigation  abundantly  established  the  fact  (of 
which  at  the  time  Congress  did  not  possess  legal  knowledge)  that 
the  State  of  Louisiana  had  been  carried  for  Mr.  Seymour  by  shameless 
fraud,  by  cruel  intimidation,  by  shocking  violence.  As  incidental 
and  unmistakable  proof  of  fraud,  it  was  afterwards  shown  from  the 
records  that  in  the  spring  election  of  1868,  in  the  parish  of  Orleans 
29,910  votes  had  been  cast,  and  that  the  Republicans  had  a  majority 
of  18,973 ;  whereas  in  the  ensuing  autumn,  at  the  Presidential  elec- 
tion, the  returns  for  the  same  parish  gave  General  Grant  but  1,178 
votes,  while  Mr.  Seymour  was  declared  to  have  received  24,668.  In 
the  parish  of  Caddo,  where  in  the  spring  election  the  Republicans 
had  shown  a  decided  majority,  General  Grant  received  but  one  vote. 
In  the  parish  of  Saint  Landry,  where  the  Republicans  had  prevailed 
in  the  spring  election  by  a  majority  of  678,  not  a  single  vote  was 
counted  for  General  Grant,  the  returns  giving  to  Mr.  Seymour  the 
entire  registered  vote  —  4,787.  In  other  parishes  the  results,  if  less 
aggravated  and  less  startling,  were  of  like  character,  and  the  State, 
which  the  Republicans  had  carried,  at  an  entirely  peaceful  election  in 
the  spring,  by  a  majority  of  more  than  12,000,  was  now  declared  to 
have  given  Mr.  Seymour  a  majority  of  47,000. 

There  was  no  pretense  that  there  had  been  a  revolution  of  public 
opinion  in  the  State  to  justify  these  returns.  It  was  not  indeed 
denied  that  General  Grant  was  personally  far  stronger  before  the 
people  of  Louisiana  than  any  Republican  candidate  at  previous  State 
or  Parish  elections.  The  change  was  simply  the  result  of  fraud,  and 
the  fraud  was  based  on  violence.  Various  investigations  ordered  by 
Congress  establish  this  view.  "  From  these  investigations,"  as  was 
stated  in  a  subsequent  report,  "  it  appears  that  over  two  thousand 
persons  were  killed,  wounded,  and  otherwise  injured  in  that  State 
within  a  few  weeks  of  the  Presidential  election  of  1868 ;  that  half 
the  State  was  overrun  by  violence,  midnight  raids,  secret  murders, 
and  open  riots,  which  kept  the  people  in  constant  terror,  until  the 
Republicans  surrendered  all  claims,  and  then  the  election  was  carried 
by  the  Democracy." 

The  same  report  states  that  in  the  parish  of  Orleans  "  riots  pre- 


MR.  SEYMOUR'S  VOTE  IN  LOUISIANA.  411 

vailed  for  weeks,  filling  New  Orleans  with  scenes  of  blood,  and  Ku- 
Klux  notices  were  scattered  throughout  the  city  warning  the  colored 
men  not  to  vote."  In  the  parish  of  Caddo,  where  as  already  stated 
only  one  vote  was  counted  for  General  Grant,  "  there  occurred  one 
of  the  bloodiest  riots  on  record,  in  which  the  Ku-Klux  killed  and 
wounded  over  two  hundred  Republicans,  hunting  and  chasing  them 
for  two  days  and  nights  through  fields  and  swamps.  Thirteen  cap- 
tives were  taken  from  the  jail  and  shot,  and  a  pile  of  twenty-five 
dead  bodies  was  found  buried  in  the  woods."  These  atrocious  crimes 
immediately  preceded  the  election,  and  "having  thus  conquered  the 
Republicans  and  killed  and  driven  off  their  white  leaders,  the  masses 
of  the  negroes  were  captured  by  the  Ku-Klux,  marked  with  badges  of 
red  flannel,  enrolled  in  clubs,  led  to  the  polls  and  compelled  to  vote 
the  Democratic  ticket,  after  which  they  were  given  certificates  of  that 
fact." 

One  of  the  most  alarming  features  connected  with  this  series  of 
outrages  was  the  promptness  with  which  Louisiana  resorted  to  vio- 
lence after  her  re-admission  to  the  right  of  representation  in  Con- 
gress. Her  senators  and  representatives  had  taken  their  seats  in 
their  respective  Houses  only  the  preceding  summer,  and  her  right  to 
participate  in  the  Presidential  election  was  established  at  the  same 
time.  Within  less  than  five  months  after  her  formal  reconstruction, 
outrages  which  would  be  exceptional  in  the  governments  of  Algiers 
or  Egypt  were  committed  in  utter  defiance  of  law,  and  without  any 
attempt  at  punishment  by  the  authorities  of  the  State.  Not  to 
punish  was  in  effect  to  approve. 

As  a  mere  question  of  figures,  it  is  impossible  that  Mr.  Seymour 
could  have  received  the  80,225  votes  with  which  he  was  credited. 
Indeed,  his  alleged  majority  of  47,000  over  General  Grant  was  greater 
than  the  total  vote  which  the  Democratic  party  could  honestly  cast 
in  Louisiana.  In  the  Presidential  election  of  1860,  when  circum- 
stances tended  to  call  every  Democrat  in  the  South  to  the  polls, 
the  united  vote  of  Breckinridge  and  Douglas  in  Louisiana  was  but 
30,306,  while  the  total  vote,  including  that  given  for  John  Bell,  was 
but  50,510.  In  1867  the  entire  registered  white  vote  of  Louisiana 
was  but  45,199.  The  white  voting  population  of  the  State,  there- 
fore, was  certainly  no  larger  in  1868  than  in  1860  —  if  as  large.  It 
was  not  denied  that  since  the  close  of  the  war  a  considerable  number 
of  white  men  had  joined  the  Republican  party  ;  while  it  was  not  even 
claimed  that  a  single  negro  voted  the  Democratic  ticket  in  1868,  ex- 


412  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

cept  as  he  was  led  to  the  polls  under  the  cover  of  Ku-Klux  weapons, 
terrorized  by  the  violence  of  that  association  of  lawless  men. 

It  amounts  therefore  to  a  mathematical  demonstration,  that  nearly 
one-half  of  Mr.  Seymour's  vote  was  fraudulent ;  and  of  that  fact  con- 
cealment is  no  longer  attempted  from  any  respectable  source.  It 
has  been  matter  of  surprise  to  the  cotemporaries  of  Mr.  Seymour, 
that  sensitive  as  he  has  shown  himself  on  many  occasions  in  regard 
to  the  record  of  his  political  life,  he  would  consent,  after  investigation 
and  exposure  of  the  atrocities  had  been  made,  to  remain  in  history 
without  protest  as  the  beneficiary  of  a  vote  that  was  demonstrably 
fraudulent  in  its  character,  —  a  vote  that  was  tainted  with  crime  and 
stained  with  the  blood  of  innocent  men.  It  is  assuredly  not  to  be 
presumed  that  violent  acts  and  murderous  deeds  are  less  repulsive  to 
Mr.  Seymour  than  to  any  other  refined  and  Christian  gentleman. 
But  his  silence  in  respect  to  the  wicked  transactions  of  his  supporters 
in  Louisiana,  when  he  was  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency,  has  per- 
suaded many  honest-minded  Democrats  that  the  whole  narrative  of 
crime  was  a  slander,  concocted  in  the  interest  of  the  Republican 
party.  It  has  served  also  a  far  more  deplorable  purpose,  for  it  has 
in  large  measure  aided  in  screening  from  public  reprobation,  and 
possibly  from  exemplary  punishment,  the  guilty  principals  and  the 
scarcely  less  guilty  accomplices  in  the  maiming  and  murder  of  Ameri- 
can citizens,  who  were  only  seeking  to  exercise  their  Constitutional 
right  of  suffrage. 


The  Republican  victory  of  1866  led  to  the  incorporation  of 
impartial  suffrage  in  the  Reconstruction  laws.  The  Republican 
victory  of  1868,  it  was  now  resolved  in  the  councils  of  the  party, 
should  lead  to  the  incorporation  of  impartial  suffrage  in  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States.  The  evasive  and  discreditable  position 
in  regard  to  suffrage,  taken  by  the  National  Republican  Convention 
that  nominated  General  Grant  in  1868,  was  keenly  felt  and  appre- 
ciated by  the  members  of  the  party  when  subjected  to  popular 
discussion.  There  was  something  so  obviously  unfair  and  unmanly 
in  the  proposition  to  impose  negro  suffrage  on  the  Southern  States 
by  National  power,  and  at  the  same  time  to  leave  the  Northern  States 
free  to  decide  the  question  for  themselves,  that  the  Republicans 
became  heartily  ashamed  of  it  long  before  the  political  canvass  had 
closed.  When  Congress  assembled,  immediately  after  the  election 


FIFTEENTH  AMENDMENT  TO  THE  CONSTITUTION.        413 

of  General  Grant,  there  was  found  to  be  a  common  desire  and  a 
common  purpose  among  Republicans  to  correct  the  unfortunate 
position  in  which  the  party  had  been  placed  by  the  National  Con- 
vention ;  and  to  that  end  it  was  resolved  that  suffrage,  as  between 
the  races,  should  by  organic  law  be  made  impartial  in  all  the  States 
of  the  Union  —  North  as  well  as  South. 

Various  propositions  were  at  once  offered,  both  in  Senate  and 
House,  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  in  order  to 
attain  impartial  suffrage.  It  was  both  significant  and  appropriate 
that  the  draught  proposed  by  Mr.  Henderson  of  Missouri  was  taken 
as  the  basis  of  the  Amendment  first  reported  to  the  Senate.  In  the 
preceding  Congress,  when  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  was  under 
consideration  (in  the  spring  of  1866),  Mr.  Henderson  had  proposed 
substantially  the  same  provision,  and  had  solemnly  warned  his 
Republican  associates  that  though  they  might  reject  it  then,  it  would 
be  demanded  of  them  in  less  than  five  years.  This  declaration  was 
all  the  more  suggestive  and  creditable,  coming  from  a  senator  who 
represented  a  former  slave-holding  State.  And  it  was  not  forgotten 
that  Mr.  Henderson  had  with  equal  zeal  and  equal  foresight  been 
among  the  earliest  to  propose  the  Thirteenth  Amendment.  Mr.  Hen- 
derson's proposition,  now  submitted  and  referred  to  the  Judiciary 
Committee,  was  in  these  words :  "  No  State  shall  deny  or  abridge  the 
right  of  its  citizens  to  vote  or  hold  office,  on  account  of  race,  color, 
or  previous  condition."  It  was  reported  from  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee by  Mr.  Stewart  of  Nevada,  with  an  amendment  proposing 
another  form  of  statement;  namely,  "The  right  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States  to  vote  and  hold  office  shall  not  be  denied  or  abridged 
by  the  United  States  or  any  State  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  pre- 
vious condition  of  servitude." 

During  the  debate  on  the  question  Mr.  Hendricks  of  Indiana 
reproached  the  Republican  party  for  forcing  this  question  now  upon 
Congress,  when  in  the  platform  of  principles  upon  which  they  ap- 
pealed for  popular  support  they  had  distinctly  waived  it,  and  when 
the  Legislatures  to  which  it  must  go  for  ratification  had  been  elected 
without  the  slightest  reference  to  it  in  the  popular  mind.  In  order 
to  prevent  what  might  seem  to  be  an  unfair  submission  of  the  Amend- 
ment, Mr.  Dixon  of  Connecticut  proposed  that  it  should  be  referred 
to  conventions  in  the  respective  States  instead  of  to  the  Legislatures, 
and  thus  give  to  the  people,  in  the  election  of  members  of  the  con- 
ventions, a  full  opportunity  to  pass  upon  the  merits  of  the  question. 


414  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

It  was  contended  on  the  other  hand  by  Republican  senators,  that  no 
subject  had  been  more  fully  matured  in  the  popular  mind  than  this 
had  been  by  the  discussions  which  had  taken  place  since  the  begin- 
ning, and  especially  since  the  close,  of  the  war.  But  this  was  not 
a  candid  or  truthful  statement  of  the  case,  as  had  been  abundantly 
shown  by  the  action  of  the  National  Republican  Convention.  Only 
a  few  of  the  leaders  of  the  party  had  openly  announced  themselves 
in  favor  of  negro  suffrage  in  the  Nation ;  a  few  were  openly  hostile, 
while  the  great  majority  of  the  prominent  members  feared  it  and 
refrained  from  open  expression  in  regard  to  it.  The  mass  of  the 
party,  as  is  usual  on  questions  of  this  character,  had  made  their  own 
conclusions,  and  their  earnestness  of  conviction  finally  forced,  if  it 
did  not  persuade,  the  reluctant  chiefs  to  adopt  it.  When  they  at  last 
came  to  it,  there  was  a  natural  disposition  to  represent  it  as  one  of 
the  cardinal  principles  of  the  party.  The  Democratic  criticisms,  as 
to  the  time  and  method  of  presenting  the  Amendment,  were  well 
aimed  and  practically  remained  unanswered  for  the  simple  reason 
that  no  adequate  or  logical  response  could  be  made  to  them. 

Mr.  Garrett  Davis  of  Kentucky  charged  that  the  Republican 
party,  in  proposing  this  Amendment,  was  simply  seeking  to  perpetu- 
ate its  power  in  the  country ;  but  on  this  point  he  was  effectively 
answered  by  Mr.  Wilson  of  Massachusetts.  "  The  senator  from 
Kentucky  knows,  and  I  know,"  said  Mr.  Wilson,  "  that  this  whole 
struggle  to  give  equal  rights  and  equal  privileges  to  all  citizens 
of  the  United  States  has  been  an  unpopular  one ;  that  we  have  been 
forced  to  struggle  against  passion  and  prejudice  engendered  by 
generations  of  wrong  and  oppression  ;  that  we  have  been  compelled 
to  struggle  against  great  interests  and  powerful  political  organiza- 
tions. I  say  to  the  senator  from  Kentucky  that  the  struggle  of  the 
last  eight  years  to  give  freedom  to  four  and  a  half  millions  of  men 
who  were  held  in  slavery,  to  make  them  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  to  clothe  them  with  the  right  of  suffrage,  to  give  them  the 
privilege  of  being  voted  for,  to  make  them  in  all  respects  equal  to 
the  white  citizens  of  the  United  States,  has  cost  the  Republican 
party  a  quarter  of  a  million  votes." 

The  House  of  Representatives  had  been  considering  the  question 
of  the  suffrage  amendment  at  equal  step  with  the  Senate.  On  the 
llth  of  January  Mr.  Boutwell  of  Massachusetts,  from  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  Judiciary,  proposed  an  Amendment  to  the  Constitution 
in  these  words :  "  The  right  of  any  citizen  of  the  United  States  to 


FIFTEENTH  AMENDMENT  TO  THE  CONSTITUTION.        415 

vote  shall  not  be  denied  or  abridged  by  the  United  States  or  any 
State,  by  reason  of  the  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  slavery 
of  any  citizen  or  class  of  citizens  of  the  United  States.  —  The  Congress 
shall  have  power  to  enforce  by  proper  legislation  the  provisions  of 
this  Article." 

Mr.  Boutwell  made  one  of  the  strongest  and  most  pointed  argu- 
ments delivered  in  Congress  for  the  adoption  of  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment.  He  showed  that  by  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  we 
had  declared  that  "all  persons  born  or  naturalized  in  the  United 
States  and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  are  citizens  of  the 
United  States  and  of  the  States  wherein  they  reside."  "  There  are," 
said  he,  "  citizens  in  Kentucky  and  Maryland  eligible  to-day  to  the 
office  of  President  or  Vice-President  of  the  United  States,  yet  who 
cannot  vote  for  representatives  in  Congress,  or  even  for  a  State, 
county  or  town  officer.  What  is  the  qualification  for  the  office  of 
President  ?  He  must  be  a  native-born  citizen  of  the  United  States 
and  thirty-five  years  of  age.  Nothing  more  !  These  are  the  only 
qualifications  for  the  office  of  President.  By  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution,  we  have  declared  that  all  the  black 
men  in  Maryland  and  other  States  shall  be  citizens  of  the  United 
States.  Certain  State  governments  have  for  the  present  denied 
those  people  die  right  to  vote,  and  yet  one  of  them  is  eligible  to  the 
Presidency  of  the  United  States  and  another  to  the  Vice-Presidency. 
Is  there  such  an  anomaly  in  our  Government  ?  Are  we  prepared 
to  admit  its  existence  unless  the  Constitution  imperatively  re- 
quires it?" 

The  speech  of  Mr.  Boutwell  was  answered  by  Mr.  Beck  of  Ken- 
tucky and  Mr.  Eldridge  of  Wisconsin,  their  respective  arguments 
resting  mainly  upon  the  propriety  of  leaving  the  regulation  of  suf- 
frage within  the  power  of  the  States,  where  it  was  originally  left  by 
the  Constitution.  After  several  ineffectual  attempts  to  amend  the 
Constitutional  Amendment  as  reported  from  the  Judiciary  Commit- 
tee, the  House,  on  the  30th  of  January  (1869),  passed  it  by  ayes  150, 
noes  42,  not  voting  31. 

When  the  House  Amendment  reached  the  Senate  it  was  at  once 
taken  up  for  consideration,  and  the  Amendment  which  that  body 
had  been  considering  was  laid  aside.  This  was  done  for  the  purpose 
of  expediting  an  agreement  between  the  two  branches.  Numerous 
modifications  and  additions  were  then  proposed,  including  the  one 
originally  reported  by  the  Judiciary  Committee.  Every  modification 


416  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

or  substitute  failed,  until  Senator  Wilson  offered  the  following: 
"  No  discrimination  shall  be  made  in  any  State  among  the  citizens 
of  the  United  States  in  the  exercise  of  the  elective  franchise,  or  in 
the  right  to  hold  office  in  any  State,  on  account  of  race,  color, 
nativity,  property,  education,  or  religious  creed."  Mr.  Trumbull 
declared  that  the  adoption  of  this  Amendment  would  abolish  the 
constitutions  of  perhaps  all,  certainly  of  half,  the  States  of  the 
Union.  He  then  pointed  out  that  the  constitution  of  almost  every 
State  prescribed  a  qualification  of  age  for  the  governor  of  the  State, 
and  of  a  certain  length  of  residence,  many  of  them  requiring  a 
natural-born  citizen  ;  and  that  the  effect  of  Mr.  Wilson's  Amend- 
ment would  be  to  level  all  the  constitutions,  and  radically  reverse 
the  deliberate  judgment  of  the  people  of  the  States  who  had  ordained 
them.  Serious  objections  were  also  made  against  prohibiting  an 
educational  test,  as  would  be  the  effect  of  Mr.  Wilson's  Amendment. 
Mr.  Wilson  frankly  avowed  his  hostility  to  an  educational  test,  and 
declared  that  the  one  existing  in  Massachusetts  had  never  proved 
valuable  in  any  sense.  Against  all  objections  and  arguments  Mr. 
Wilson's  Amendment  was  adopted  by  the  Senate. 

A  proposition  was  now  introduced  and  supported  with  equal  zeal 
by  Mr.  Morton  of  Indiana  and  Mr.  Buckalew  of  Pennsylvania,  pro- 
posing an  amendment  to  the  pending  resolution,  which  should  in 
effect  be  a  sixteenth  amendment  to  the  Constitution.  Its  aim  was  to 
take  from  the  States  the  power  now  confided  to  them  by  the  Consti- 
tution, to  direct  the  manner  in  which  electors  of  President  and  Vice- 
President  shall  be  chosen.  The  declared  motive  for  the  change  was 
to  prevent  the  possibility  of  the  electors  being  chosen  by  State  Legis- 
latures, as  had  been  done  in  some  cases,  and  to  guarantee  the  cer- 
tainty of  a  popular  vote  in  their  selection  in  every  State  of  the 
Union.  To  insure  this  result  it  was  proposed  in  the  amendment  that 
the  entire  power  over  the  choice  of  electors  should  be  transferred  to 
Congress.  After  brief  debate  the  amendment  was  agreed  to,1  and  the 

1  The  proposition  of  Messrs.  Morton  and  Buckalew  for  a  Sixteenth  Article  of  Amend- 
ment was  as  follows  :  — 

"  The  second  clause,  first  section,  second  article  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  shall  be  amended  to  read  as  follows  :  '  Each  State  shall  appoint,  by  vote  of  the 
people  thereof  qualified  to  vote  for  representatives  in  Congress,  a  number  of  electors 
equal  to  the  whole  number  of  senators  and  representatives  to  which  the  State  may  be 
entitled  in  the  Congress  ;  but  no  senator  or  representative,  or  person  holding  an  office 
of  trust  or  profit  under  the  United  States,  shall  be  appointed  an  elector  ;  and  the  Con- 
gress shall  have  power  to  prescribe  the  manner  in  which  such  electors  shall  be  chosen 
by  the  people.* " 


THE  THREE   CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENTS.  417 

two  proposed  articles,  included  under  one  resolution,  were  adopted 
by  ayes  39,  noes  16,  and  sent  to  the  House  for  concurrence. 

The  House  not  being  willing  to  accept  the  Senate's  Amendments, 
refused  by  formal  vote  to  concur,  and  asked  for  a  conference.  The 
Senate  took  the  unusual  step  of  declining  a  conference,  promptly 
receded  from  its  own  Amendments,  and  sent  to  the  House  the 
original  proposition  of  that  body.  The  House,  not  to  be  outdone 
by  the  Senate  in  capricious  change  of  opinion,  now  refused  to  agree 
to  the  form  of  amendment  it  had  before  adopted,  and  returned  it  to 
the  Senate  with  the  added  requirement  of  nativity,  property,  and 
creed,  which  the  Senate  had  originally  proposed.  The  Senate  in  turn 
rejected  all  it  had  before  proposed.  The  rule  indeed  seemed  to  be 
for  each  branch  to  desert  its  own  proposition  as  soon  as  there  was 
a  prospect  that  the  other  branch  would  agree  to  it.  The  strange  con- 
troversy was  finally  ended  and  the  subject  brought  into  intelligible 
shape  by  a  conference  committee,  which  reported  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment  in  the  precise  form  in  which  it  became  incorporated 
in  the  Constitution.  It  received  the  sanction  of  the  House  by  a 
vote  far  beyond  the  two-thirds  required  to  adopt  it,  the  ayes  being 
145,  the  noes  44.  In  the  Senate  the  ayes  were  39,  the  noes  were  13. 
The  action  of  Congress  on  the  Amendment  was  completed  on  the 
26th  of  February,  six  days  before  General  Grant  was  installed  in 
the  Presidency. 

The  gradual  progress  of  public  opinion  in  the  United  States  on 
questions  relating  to  slavery  and  to  the  personal  and  political  rights 
of  the  negro  race,  may  be  clearly  traced  in  the  Thirteenth,  Four- 
teenth, and  Fifteenth  Amendments  to  the  Constitution. 

—  The  Thirteenth  Amendment,  proposed  by  Congress  while  the  war 
was  yet  flagrant,  simply  declared  that  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary 
servitude  shall  exist  within  the  United  States  or  in  any  place  subject 
to  National  jurisdiction. 

—  The  Fourteenth  Amendment  advanced  the  negro  to  the  status  of 
a  citizen,  but  did  nothing  affirmatively  to  confer  the  right  of  suffrage 
upon  him.     Negatively  it  aided  him  thereto,  by  laying  the  penalty  of 
a  decreased  representation  upon  any  State  that  should  deny  or  in 
any  way  abridge  his  right  to  vote  at  any  election  for  the  choice  of 
electors   for   President   and   Vice-President   of   the   United   States, 
representatives  in  Congress,  the  executive  and  judicial  officers  of  a 
State,  or  the  members  of  the  Legislature  thereof. 

—  The  Fifteenth  Amendment,  now  proposed,  did  not  attempt  to  de- 

VOL.  II.  27 


418  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

clare  affirmatively  that  the  negro  should  be  endowed  with  the  elective 
franchise,  but  it  did  what  was  tantamount,  in  forbidding  to  the 
United  States  or  to  any  State  the  power  to  deny  or  abridge  the  righl 
to  vote  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude, 
States  that  should  adopt  an  educational  test  or  a  property  qualifica- 
tion might  still  exclude  a  vast  majority  of  negroes  from  the  polls, 
but  they  would  at  the  same  time  exclude  all  white  men  who  could  not 
comply  with  the  tests  that  excluded  the  negro.  In  short,  suffrage 
by  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  was  made  impartial,  but  not  necessa- 
rily universal,  to  male  citizens  above  the  age  of  twenty-one  years. 

The  adoption  of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  seriously  modified  the 
effect  and  potency  of  the  second  section  of  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment. Under  that  section  a  State  could  exclude  the  negro  from  the 
right  of  suffrage,  if  willing  to  accept  the  penalty  of  the  proportional 
loss  of  representation  in  Congress,  which  the  exclusion  of  the  colored 
population  from  the  basis  of  apportionment  would  entail.  But  the 
Fifteenth  Amendment  took  away  absolutely  from  the  State  the 
power  -to  exclude  the  negro  from  suffrage,  and  therefore  the  second 
section  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  can  refer  only  to  those  other 
disqualifications  never  likely  to  be  applied,  by  which  a  State  might 
lessen  her  voting  population  by  basing  the  right  of  suffrage  on  the 
ownership  of  real  estate,  or  on  the  possession  of  a  fixed  income,  01 
upon  a  certain  degree  of  education,  or  upon  nativity,  or  religious 
creed.  It  is  still  in  the  power  of  the  States  to  apply  any  one  of  these 
tests  or  all  of  them,  if  willing  to  hazard  the  penalty  prescribed  in  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment.  But  it  is  not  probable  that  any  one  oi 
these  tests  will  ever  be  applied.  Nor  were  they  seriously  taken  into 
consideration  when  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  was  proposed  by 
Congress.  Its  prime  object  was  to  correct  the  wrongs  ..which  might 
be  enacted  in  the  South,  and  the.  correction  proposed  was  direct  and 
unmistakable ;  viz.,  that  the  Nation  would  exclude  the  negro  from 
the  basis  of  apportionment  wherever  the  State  should  -  exclude  him 
from  the  right  of  suffrage. 

When  therefore  the  nation  by  subsequent  change  in  its  Consti- 
tution declared  that  the  State  shall  not  exclude  the  negro  from 
the  right  of  suffrage,  it  neutralized  and  surrendered  the  contingent 
right  before  held,  to  exclude  him  from  the  basis  of  apportionment. 
Congress  is  thus  plainly  deprived  by  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  of 
certain  powers  over  representation  in  the  South,  which  it  previously 
possessed  under  the  provisions  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  Be- 


THE  THREE  CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENTS.  419 

fore  the  adoption  of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment,  if  a  State  should 
exclude  the  negro  from  suffrage,  the  next  step  would  be  for  Congress 
to  exclude  the  negro  from  the  basis  of  apportionment.  After  the 
adoption  of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment,  if  a  State  should  exclude  the 
negro  from  suffrage,  the  next  step  would  be  for  the  Supreme  Court 
to  declare  that  the  act  was  unconstitutional,  and  therefore  null  and 
void.  The  essential  and  inestimable  value  of  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment still  remains  in  the  three  other  sections,  and  pre-eminently  in 
the  first  section. 

The  contentions  which  have  arisen  between  political  parties  as  to 
the  rights  of  negro  suffrage  in  the  Southern  States,  would  scarcely 
be  cognizable  judicially  under  either  the  Fourteenth  or  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution.  Both  of  those  Amendments 
operate  as  inhibitions  upon  the  power  of  the  State,  and  do  not 
have  reference  to  those  irregular  acts  of  the  people  which  find  no 
authorization  in  the  public  statutes.  The  defect  in  both  Amend- 
ments, in  so  far  as  their  main  object  of  securing  rights  to  the  colored 
race  is  involved,  lies  in  the  fact  that  they  do  not  operate  directly 
upon  the  people,  and  therefore  Congress  is  not  endowed  with  the 
pertinent  and  applicable  power  to  give  redress.  By  decisions  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  has  been  deprived  in 
part  of  the  power  which  Congress  no  doubt  intended  to  impart  to  it. 
Under  its  provisions,  as  construed  by  the  Court,  little,  if  any  thing, 
can  be  done  by  Congress  to  correct  the  evils  or  avert  the  injurious 
consequences  arising  from  such  abuses  of  the  suffrage  as  distin- 
guished the  vote  of  Louisiana  in  the  Presidential  election  of  1868, 
and  in  the  numerous  flagrant  cases  which  followed  that  baleful  prece- 
dent of  unrestrained  violence  and  unlimited  wrong.  Those  outrages 
are  the  deeds  of  individual  citizens  or  of  associated  masses,  acting 
without  authority  of  law  and  in  defiance  of  law.  Yet  when  a 
vitiated  public  opinion  justifies  their  course,  and  when  indictment 
and  conviction  are  impossible,  the  injured  citizen  loses  his  rights  as 
conclusively  as  if  the  law  had  denied  them,  and  indeed  far  more 
cruelly. 

Undoubtedly  a  large  proportion  of  the  members  of  Congress, 
while  following  the  lead  of  those  who  constructed  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment,  sincerely  believed  that  it  possessed  a  far  greater  scope 
than  judicial  inquiry  and  decision  have  left  to  it.  It  is  hazarding 
little  to  say  that  if  the  same  political  bodies  which  submitted  the 
Amendment  to  the  people  could  have  measured  both  the  need  of  its 


420  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

application  and  the  insufficiency  of  its  power,  it  would  have  been 
seriously  changed,  and  would  have  conferred  upon  the  National 
Government  the  unquestioned  authority  to  protect  individual  citi- 
zens in  the  right  of  suffrage,  so  far  as  that  suffrage  is  used  in  the 
choice  of  officers  of  the  United  States.  The  opportunity  was 
neglected  and  may  never  return.  It  is  not  at  all  probable  that  any 
political  party  will  succeed  in  time  of  peace,  upon  financial  and 
industrial  issues,  in  electing  two-thirds  of  the  Senate  and  two- 
thirds  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  No  further  change  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  Republic  is  probable  therefore,  within  any  period 
whose  line  of  thought  or  action  may  now  be  anticipated  with  reason- 
able certainty ;  and  if  a  sudden  political  convulsion  should  possibly 
give  two-thirds  of  each  branch  of  Congress  to  one  political  party,  it 
would  be  found  impracticable  to  propose  any  change  in  the  Consti- 
tution, in  the  direction  of  enlarging  the  scope  of  liberty,  that  would 
be  likely  to  secure  the  support  of  three-fourths  of  the  States  of  the 
Union. 

The  Constitutional  Amendments  were  proposed  and  adopted 
under  the  belief  that  they  would  be  honorably  observed  and  enforced 
in  all  the  States  alike.  The  presumption  was  certainly  in  favor  of 
that  loyal  obedience  to  the  organic  law  of  the  Republic  without 
which  Anarchy  has  already  begun  its  evil  work.  If  however,  by 
reason  of  infidelity  to  Constitutional  provisions  in  some  sections, 
if  by  violence  in  resisting  them  in  others,  it  be  suggested  that  they 
should  have  been  drawn  with  greater  circumspection,  with  a  broader 
comprehension  of  all  the  contingencies  of  the  future,  the  fact  yet 
remains  that  they  are  of  priceless  value  to  the  Government  and  the 
people.  They  have  added  largely  to  the  muniments  of  personal 
liberty ;  they  have  immeasurably  increased  the  just  power  of  the 
National  Government ;  they  have  exerted  a  constantly  growing  force 
against  the  spirit  that  organized  the  Rebellion ;  they  have  strength- 
ened the  bonds  of  the  Union  against  every  form  of  danger  which  it 
has  hitherto  encountered. 

Without  the  Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  Amendments,  the  Thir- 
teenth would  have  proved  of  little  value  to  the  oppressed  race  which 
it  declared  to  be  free.  In  every  step  taken  after  the  simple  article 
of  emancipation  was  decreed,  the  Republicans  who  controlled  the 
Government  met  with  obstacles  from  without  and  from  within. 
There  were  thousands  in  their  own  ranks  who  did  not  wish  the 
negro  advanced  to  citizenship ;  there  were  tens  of  thousands  who 


THE  CONTINUOUS  STRUGGLE.  421 

were  unwilling  to  see  him  advanced  to  the  elective  franchise.  But 
happily  there  were  hundreds  of  thousands  who  plainly  saw  that 
without  the  rights  of  citizenship  his  freedom  could  be  maintained 
only  in  name,  and  that  without  the  elective  franchise  his  citizenship 
would  have  no  legitimate  and  (if  the  phrase  be  allowed)  no  auto- 
matic protection. 

To  the  brave  men  who  led  the  Republican  party  to  its  duty  and 
its  mission,  who  overcame  the  numbers  of  the  opposition,  who  lifted 
their  associates  from  the  slough  of  prejudice  and  led  them  out  of  the 
darkness  of  tradition,  let  there  be  all  honor  and  praise.  They  gave, 
hope  to  the  hopeless,  help  to  the  helpless,  liberty  to  the  downtrodden. 
They  did  more :  they  elevated  the  character  and  enlightened  the 
conscience  of  the  oppressing  race.  The  struggle  is  not  yet  ended, 
the  final  battle  is  not  fought ;  but  complete  victory  sooner  or  later 
is  assured.  The  three  great  Amendments  to  the  Constitution  were 
bought  with  a  great  price  —  even  the  blood  of  the  slain  —  and  they 
will  assuredly,  in  their  letter  and  in  their  spirit,  be  vindicated  and 
enforced.  Mr.  Lincoln  taught  his  countrymen  the  lesson  that  he 
who  would  be  no  slave  must  be  content  to  have  no  slave.  It  is  yet 
to  be  learned  with  equal  emphasis  that  he  who  would  preserve  his 
own  right  to  suffrage  must  never  aid  in  depriving  another  citizen 
of  the  same  great  boon.  In  moral  as  in  physical  conflicts  it  may 
be  easy  to  determine  who  strikes  the  first  blow,  but  it  is  difficult  to 
foresee  who  may  strike  the  last. 


CHAPTER    XVII. 

INAUGURATION  OF  GENERAL  GRANT  FOR  FIRST  TERM.  —  POPULAR  ENTHUSIASM.  —  His 
INAUGURAL  ADDRESS.  —  APPROVES  FIFTEENTH  AMENDMENT.  —  ANNOUNCEMENT  OF 
HIS  CABINET.  —  GENERAL  SURPRISE.  —  E.  B.  WASHBURNE.  —  JACOB.  D.  Cox.  —  E. 
BOCKWOOD  HOAR.  —  JOHN  A.  J.  CRESWELL.  —  ALEXANDER  T.  STEWART.  —  INELI- 
GIBLE. —  NAME  WITHDRAWN.  —  GEORGE  S.  BOUTWELL  APPOINTED.  —  ADOLPH  E. 
BORIE.  —  HAMILTON  FISH.  —GEORGE  M.  ROBESON.  —  GENERAL  SCHOFIELD.  —  GEN- 
ERAL RAWLINS.  —  GENERAL  BELKNAP.  —  GENERAL  OF  THE  ARMY.  —  THE  SUCCES- 
SION. —  SHERMAN  APPOINTED.  —  LIEUTENANT-GENERAL.  —  SHERIDAN  APPOINTED.  — 
HALLECK.  —  MEADE.  —  THOMAS.  —  HANCOCK.  —  CONGRESS  CONVENES.  —  ELECTION  OF 
SPEAKER  —  MR.  BLAINE  CHOSEN.  —  MR.  KERR  THE  DEMOCRATIC  CANDIDATE.  — 
VARIOUS  MEMBERS.  —  MR.  WHEELER.  —  MR.  POTTER.  —  JUDGE  NOAH  DAVIS.  — 
GENERAL  SLOCUM.  —  MR.  HALE.  —THOMAS  FITCH.  —THE  PENNSYLVANIA  DELEGA- 
TION. —  MR.  S.  S.  Cox.  —  MR.  GEORGE  F.  HOAR.  —  NEW  ERA  POLITICALLY  UNDER 
PRESIDENT  GRANT.  —  THE  OPPOSITION  PARTY  IN  THE  HOUSE.—  ITS  STRONG  LEAD- 
ERS. —  THEIR  MANLY  CHARACTER. 


ENERAL  GRANT  was  inaugurated  on  -Thursday,  the  4th  of 
March,  1869,  amid  a  great  display  of  popular  enthusiasm.  All 
parties  joined  in  it.  The  Republicans,  who  had  been  embarrassed 
by  President  Johnson's  conduct  for  the  preceding  four  years,  felt 
that  they  had  overcome  a  political  enemy  rather  than  a  man  whom 
they  had  themselves  placed  in  power  ;  and  the  Democrats,  who  had 
supported  Johnson  so  far  as  was  necessary  to  embarrass  and  distract 
the  Republicans,  were  glad  to  be  released  from  an  entangling  alliance 
which  had  brought  them  neither  profit  nor  honor.  Contrary  to  the 
etiquette  of  the  occasion,  the  incoming  President  was  not'  escorted 
to  the  Capitol  by  his  predecessor.  The  exceptions  to  this  usage 
have  been  few.  John  Adams  was  so  chagrined  by  the  circumstances 
attending  his  defeat  that  he  would  not  remain  in  Washington  to 
see  Mr.  Jefferson  installed  in  power  ;  and  the  long-established  hatred 
which  General  Jackson  and  John  Quincy  Adams  so  heartily  enter- 
tained for  each  other  forbade  any  personal  intercourse  between  them. 
General  Grant  had  conceived  so  intense  a  dislike  of  Johnson,  by 
reason  of  the  effort  to  place  him  in  a  false  position  in  connection 
with  the  removal  of  Stanton,  that  he  would  not  officially  recognize 

422 


PRESIDENT  GRANT'S  INAUGURAL  ADDRESS.  423 

his  predecessor,  even  so  far  as  to  drive  from  the  White  House  to  the 
Capitol  in  the  same  carriage. 

The  Inaugural  Address  of  the  President  was  brief  and  character- 
istic. "  I  have,"  said  he,  "  taken  the  oath  of  office  without  mental 
reservation,  and  with  the  determination  to  do  to  the  best  of  my 
ability  all  that  it  requires  of  me.  The  responsibilities  of  the  position 
I  feel,  but  accept  them  without  fear.  The  office  has  come  to  me 
unsought.  I  commence  its  duties  untrammelled.  I  bring  to  it  a 
conscientious  desire  and  determination  to  fill  it  to  the  best  of  my 
ability,  and  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  people."  He  declared  that  on 
all  subjects  he  should  have  "a  policy  to  recommend,  but  none  to 
enforce  against  the  will  of  the  people.  Laws  are  to  govern  all  alike, 
—  those  opposed  as  well  as  those  who  favor  them.  I  know  of  no 
method  to  secure  the  repeal  of  bad  or  obnoxious  laws  so  effective  as 
their  stringent  execution."  He  was  very  emphatic  upon  the  duty 
and  necessity  of  upholding  the  public  credit  and  paying  the  public 
debt.  "  Let  it  be  understood,"  said  he,  "  that  no  repudiator  of  one 
farthing  of  our  public  debt  will  be  trusted  in  public  place,  and  it 
will  go  far  to  strengthen  our  public  credit,  which  ought  to  be  the 
best  in  the  world."  "The  question  of  suffrage,"  he  said,  "is  one 
which  is  likely  to  agitate  the  public  so  long  as  a  portion  of  the  citi- 
zens of  the  Nation  are  excluded  from  its  privileges  in  any  State.  It 
seems  to  me  very  desirable  that  this  question  should  be  settled  now ; 
and  I  entertain  the  hope  and  express  the  desire  that  it  may  be  by 
the  ratification  of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution." 

General  Grant  had  never  been  in  any  way  connected  with  the 
civil  administration  of  Nation  or  State.  The  charge  of  being  a 
mere  military  chieftain  had  been  in  vain  preferred  against  some  of 
his  most  illustrious  predecessors ;  but  with  the  possible  exception 
of  General  Taylor,  no  President  ever  came  to  his  office  with  so  little 
previous  experience  in  civil  affairs.  Washington's  fame,  prior  to 
his  accession  to  the  Presidency,  rested  mainly  on  his  victorious  lead- 
ership of  the  Revolutionary  army ;  but  he  had,  as  a  young  man, 
served  in  the  Provincial  Assembly  of  Virginia,  had  been  a  member 
of  the  Continental  Congress,  and  had,  after  the  close  of  his  military 
career,  presided  over  the  convention  that  framed  the  Constitution. 
Jackson  was  chosen  President  on  account  of  his  campaign  in  the 
South-West,  ending  in  his  brilliant  triumph  at  New  Orleans;  but 
his  experience  in  civil  life  had  already  been  long  and  varied.  He 
entered  Congress  as  a  representative  from  Tennessee  when  Wash- 


424  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

ington  was  President,  took  his  seat  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  the  day  John  Adams  was  inaugurated,  and  afterwards  served 
as  a  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Tennessee.  All  these  civil 
duties  had  been  performed  before  he  received  a  military  commis- 
sion. After  his  stormy  career  in  the  army  had  ended,  he  was  again 
sent  to  the  Senate  during  the  second  term  of  President  Monroe. 
President  Taylor,  like  General  Grant,  had  been  simply  a  soldier; 
but  the  people  remembered  that  his  service  in  the  Executive  Chair 
was  faithful,  resolute,  and  intelligent ;  and  they  remembered  also 
that  some  of  the  greatest  military  heroes  of  the  world  had  been 
equally  distinguished  as  civil  rulers.  Cromwell,  William  III., 
Frederick  the  Great,  the  First  Napoleon,  left  behind  them  records 
of  civil  administration  which  for  executive  force  and  personal  energy 
established  a  fame  as  great  as  they  had  acquired  on  the  field  of 
battle.  The  inexperience  of  General  Grant  had  not  therefore  hin- 
dered his  election,  and  left  no  ground  for  apprehension  as  to  the 
.successful  conduct  of  his  administration. 

The  President  had  so  well  kept  his  own  counsels  in  regard  to 
the  members  of  his  Cabinet  that  not  a  single  name  was  anticipated 
with  certainty.  Five  of  the  appointments  were  genuine  surprises. 

—  Elihu  B.  Washburne,  long  the  faithful  friend  of  General  Grant, 
was  nominated  for  Secretary  of  State.     He  had  just  entered  upon  his 
ninth  term  as  representative  in  Congress  from  Illinois,  and  resigned 
immediately  after   swearing  an   Mr.    Elaine    as   Speaker,  —  a   duty 
assigned  to  him  as  the  oldest  member  of  the  House  in  consecutive 
service.     He  was  elected  to  Congress  in  1852,  from  the  Galena  dis- 
trict, and  his  first  term  began  on  the  day  Franklin  Pierce  was  in- 
augurated President.    His  period  of  service  was  crowded  with  events 
of  great  magnitude,  commencing  with  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  and  ending  with  the  elevation  to  the  Presidency  of 
the  chief  hero  in  the  great  civil  war,  to  which  that  repeal  proxi- 
mately  led.     During  all  these  years  Mr.  Washburne  was  an  aggres- 
sive, courageous,  faithful  representative,  intelligent  in  all  his  actions, 
loyal  to  the  Nation,  devoted  to  the  interests  of  his  State. 

—  Jacob  D.  Cox  of  Ohio,  who  had  acquired  credit  in  the  war,  and 
added  to  it  by  his  service  as  Governor  of  his  State,  was  nominated 
for  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and  was  universally  considered  to  be 
an  admirable  selection.     His  thorough  training  and  his  intellectual 
strength  fitted  him  for  any  station. 

—  E.  Rock  wood  Hoar  of  Massachusetts  was  named  for  Attorney- 


PRESIDENT  GRANT'S  CABINET.  -.        425 

General.  His  learning  as  a  lawyer  had  been  previously  recognized 
by  his  appointment  to  the  Supreme  Bench  of  his  State,  —  a  bench 
always  eminent  for  the  legal  ability  and  personal  character  of  its 
members,  and  for  the  value  of  its  decisions.  Outside  of  his  mere 
professional  sphere,  Judge  Hoar  was  known  as  a  man  of  generous 
culture,  varied  knowledge,  and  the  keenest  wit.  In  party  relations 
he  had  originally  been  an  anti-slavery  Whig,  and  was  prominent  and 
influential  in  organizing  the  Republican  party. 

—  John  A.  J.  Creswell  of  Maryland  was  nominated  for  Postmaster- 
General.  He  was  the  best  living  representative  of  those  loyal  men 
of  the  Border  States  who  had  proved  a  tower  of  strength  to  the 
Union  cause.  He  was  the  confidential  friend,  the  eloquent  eulogist, 
of  Henry  Winter  Davis,  and  had  by  service  in  both  House  and 
Senate  won  general  recognition  as  a  man  of  ability  and  great  moral 
courage. 

These  four  appointments  met  with  general  approbation.  If  their 
names  had  not  all  been  anticipated,  they  were  nevertheless  welcome 
to  the  great  mass  of  the  Republican  party.  Two  other  nominations 
created  general  astonishment.  Alexander  T.  Stewart,  the  well-known 
merchant  of  New  York,  was  named  for  Secretary  of  the  Treasury ; 
and  Adolph  E.  Borie  of  Philadelphia,  long  known  in  that  city  as  a 
man  of  probity  and  wealth,  was  named  for  Secretary  of  the  Navy. 
No  new  nomination  was  made  for  Secretary  of  War,  and  the  hope 
with  many  was  that  General  Schofield  might  be  continued  in  a  place 
whose  duties  he  had  so  faithfully  and  so  successfully  discharged. 

The  President  was  very  anxious  to  have  Mr.  Stewart  in  his 
Cabinet,  and  was  therefore  surprised  and  chagrined  to  find,  after 
he  had  been  nominated,  that  under  the  law  he  was  not  eligible  to 
the  office  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  In  the  Act  establishing  the 
Treasury  Department,  passed  at  the  first  session  of  the  First  Congress 
under  the  Federal  Government,  it  was  provided  that  no  person  could 
be  appointed  secretary,  assistant  secretary,  comptroller,  auditor, 
treasurer,  or  register,  who  was  "  directly  or  indirectly  concerned  or 
interested  in  carrying  on  the  business  of  trade  or  commerce."  It 
was  further  provided  that  any  person  violating  this  Act  should  be 
deemed  guilty  of  a  high  misdemeanor,  and  upon  conviction,  fined 
three  thousand  dollars,  removed  from  office,  and  forever  thereafter 
rendered  incapable  of  holding  any  position  under  the  Government  of 
the  United  States.  General  Grant  frankly  informed  the  Senate  that 
he  had  ascertained  Mr.  Stewart's  disability  after  the  nomination,  and 


426  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

suggested  that  "in  view  of  these  provisions  of  law  and  the  fact 
that  Mr.  Stewart  has  been  unanimously  confirmed  by  the  Senate,  he 
be  exempted,  by  joint  resolution  of  the  two  Houses  of  Congress, 
from  the  operation  of  the  law." 

As  soon  as  the  President's  message  was  read,  Mr.  Sherman  of 
Ohio  asked  "unanimous  consent  to  introduce  a  bill  repealing  so 
much  of  the  Act  of  September  2,  1789,  as  prohibits  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  from  being  concerned  in  carrying  on  the  business  of 
trade  or  commerce ;  and  providing  instead  that  in  no  case  shall  he 
act  on  any  matter,  claim,  or  account  in  which  he  is  personally  inter- 
ested." Mr.  Sumner  objected  to  the  introduction  of  the  bill,  sug- 
gesting that  it  ought  to  be  "most  profoundly  considered  before  it 
is  acted  upon  by  the  Senate."  These  proceedings  were  on  Satur- 
day, March  6th.  On  Monday  Mr.  Sherman  did  not  call  up  the  bill, 
it  having  been  ascertained  in  private  conferences  that  the  Senate 
was  unwilling  to  pass  it.  On  Tuesday  General  Grant  withdrew  the 
request,  Mr.  Stewart  resigned,  and  Hon.  George  S.  Boutwell  was 
nominated  and  confirmed  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Mr.  Boutwell  was  at  that  time  fifty-one  years  of  age.  He  had 
enjoyed  a  large  experience  in  public  affairs.  He  had  served  seven 
years  in  the  Massachusetts  Legislature,  had  been  Bank  Commis- 
sioner, Secretary  of  the  Board  of  Education,  a  member  of  the  Con- 
stitutional Convention  of  1853,  and  Governor  of  the  Commonwealth. 
Under  the  National  Government  he  had  been  Commissioner  of  Inter- 
nal Revenue,  and  six  years  a  representative  in  Congress.  He  was 
an  industrious  student,  a  strong  debater,  possessed  of  great  capacity 
for  work,  and  had  always  maintained  a  spotless  reputation. 

The  surprises  in  connection  with  General  Grant's  Cabinet  were 
not  yet  ended.  A  week  after  the .  inauguration  Secretary  Wash- 
burne  resigned,  and  a  few  days  later  was  appointed  Minister  to 
France.  He  was  succeeded  in  the  State  Department  by  Mr.  Ham- 
ilton Fish  of  New  York.  Mr.  Fish  was  a  member  of  one  of  the 
old  Knickerbocker  families.  He  had  inherited  wealth,  was  of  the 
highest  social  rank,  and  enjoyed  in  a  marked  degree  the  confidence 
and  respect  of  his  fellow-citizens.  He  was  bred  to  the  law,  and  as 
a  young  man  took  deep  interest  in  political  affairs,  earnestly  attach- 
ing himself  to  the  fortunes  of  Mr.  Clay  in  his  contest  against  General 
Jackson,  and  having  the  great  advantage  of  Mr.  Webster's  personal 
friendship.  He  had  served  in  both  branches  of  the  New- York 
Legislature,  was  a  representative  from  New-York  City  in  the 


CHANGES  IN  THE  CABINET.  427 

Twenty-eighth  Congress,  was  chosen  Governor  of  his  State  in 
1848,  and  in  1851  succeeded  Daniel  S.  Dickinson  in  the  United- 
States  Senate,  where  he  served  for  a  full  term  as  the  colleague  of 
Mr.  Seward.  At  the  close  of  his  senatorial  service  he  was  but  forty- 
eight  years  of  age,  and  by  his  own  wish  retired  from  all  participation 
in  political  affairs,  though  he  heartily  united  with  his  fellow-Repub- 
licans of  New  York  in  the  effort  to  nominate  Mr.  Seward  for  the 
Presidency  in  1860.  It  was  therefore  an  almost  equal  surprise  to 
the  country  that  General  Grant  should  call  Mr.  Fish  from  his  retire- 
ment, and  that  Mr.  Fish,  at  sixty  years  of  age,  should  again  be 
willing  to  enter  the  political  field.  His  career  as  Secretary  of  State 
was  fruitful  in  good  works.  He  was  throughout  the  eight  years  of 
his  service  devoted  to  his  official  duties,  and  it  was  his  good  fortune 
to  be  connected  with  public  events  of  exceptional  importance.  He 
brought  great  strength  to  the  Cabinet  of  General  Grant,  and  added 
in  many  ways  to  the  prestige  and  power  of  the  administration. 

The  changes  in  the  Cabinet  continued.  Immediately  after  Mr. 
Washburne's  resignation  as  Secretary  of  State,  General  Schofield 
retired  from  the  War  Department,  and  was  succeeded  by  General 
John  A.  Rawlins,  who  had  been  chief  of  staff  to  General  Grant 
during  some  of  his  most  important  campaigns.  General  Rawlins 
was  born  in  Galena,  and  was  a  personal  friend  of  General  Grant 
before  the  outbreak  of  the  war.  He  was  a  lawyer,  but  had  held 
no  civil  position,  and  entered  the  Cabinet  with  only  a  military 
experience.  He  was  in  ill  health,  and  died  in  the  following  Sep- 
tember, when  General  Sherman  succeeded  him  as  Secretary  ad 
interim,  and  administered  the  affairs  of  the  War  Department  until 
the  appointment  of  General  Belknap  at  the  close  of  October. 

Mr.  Borie,  though  gratified  with  the  compliment  of  being  called 
to  the  Cabinet,  had  no  aptitude  or  desire  for  public  affairs.  He 
urgently  requested  General  Grant  to  accept  his  resignation,  and  in 
June,  three  months  after  his  appointment,  he  was  succeeded  by 
Mr.  George  M.  Robeson.  Mr.  Robeson  was  connected  with  some 
of  the  old  families  of  New  Jersey  that  became  especially  distin- 
guished in  the  Revolutionary  war.  He  received  a  thorough  intel- 
lectual training  in  his  youth,  and  graduated  at  Princeton  College  in 
1847.  He  studied  law  in  the  office  of  the  Chief  Justice  of  his  State, 
and  came  to  the  bar  under  the  most  favorable  auspices.  He  began 
practice  as  soon  as  he  had  attained  his  majority,  and  rapidly 
advanced  in  his  profession.  At  thirty-six  years  of  age  he  was 


428  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

appointed  Attorney-General  of  his  State,  and  discharged  the  duties, 
of  that  important  office  with  an  ability  which  justly  added  to  his 
legal  reputation.  He  has  displayed  great  power  in  arguing  ques- 
tions of  Constitutional  Law.  While  engaged  in  the  Attorney- 
Generalship  he  was  appointed  Secretary  of  the  Navy  by  President 
Grant.  He  was  then  thirty-nine  years  of  age,  and  beyond  his  legal 
learning  was  a  man  of  literary  taste  and  general  knowledge  of 
affairs.  Mr.  Fish  and  Mr.  Robeson  were  the  only  members  of  Gen- 
eral Grant's  Cabinet  appointed  the  first  year  of  his  administration, 
who  served  throughout  his  Presidency. 


General  Grant  would  not  resign  his  military  commission  in  season 
for  President  Johnson  to  control  the  Army  changes  which  would 
follow.  There  was  no  dispute  about  his  immediate  successor.  Not 
only  the  rank,  but  the  illustrious  services,  the  high  personal  charac- 
ter, and  the  popular  estimate  of  Lieutenant-General  Sherman  estab- 
lished his  right  to  the  promotion.  But  discussion  arose  in  army  cir- 
cles and  among  the  people  as  to  the  Lieutenant-Generalship.  Those 
holding  the  rank  of  Major-General  were  five  in  number,  —  Henry 
W.  Halleck,  whose  commission  bore  date  August  19,  1861 ;  George 
G.  Meade,  August  18,  1864;  Philip  H.  Sheridan,  November  8, 1864; 
George  H.  Thomas,  December  15,  1864 ;  and  Winfield  S.  Hancock, 
July  26,  1866.  The  President  had  the  right  under  the  law  to  fill 
the  office  of  Lieutenant-General  by  selection,  and  he  was  not  bound 
even  by  usage  to  regard  any  claim  based  only  upon  seniority  of 
commission. 

General  Halleck's  distinction  had  not  been  won  by  service  in 
the  field.  He  was  a  graduate  of  West  Point  with  a  good  record 
in  the  Mexican  war.  He  was  appointed  Major-General  at  the  out- 
break of  the  Rebellion  on  account  of  his  well-known  ability  and  the 
presumption  of  his  fitness  for  high  command  —  a  presumption  which 
proved  not  to  be  well  founded.  Meade  had  gained  his  commission 
by  the  splendid  victory  at  Gettysburg.  Sheridan,  besides  earning 
his  commission  by  his  brilliant  success  in  the  valley  of  Virginia,  had 
been  personally  and  most  impressively  commended  by  President 
Lincoln :  his  success  was  in  fact  political  as  well  as  military,  for  it 
totally  destroyed  General  McClellan  as  a  candidate  for  the  Presi- 
dency. Thomas  had  received  his  promotion  on  account  of  the  great 


PROMOTIONS  IN  THE  ARMY.  429 

victory  at  Nashville,  without  which  Sherman  might  have  been  seri- 
ously embarrassed  in  his  march  to  the  sea.  General  Hancock  was 
commissioned  after  the  war  for  general  efficiency  as  a  soldier  and  for 
(heroism  on  many  battle-fields.  No  task  could  be  more  invidious  than 
to  decide  between  officers  of  merit  so  marked.  If  Mr.  Johnson  could 
have  had  the  opportunity,  it  was  well  known  that  he  would  appoint 
Thomas  to  succeed  General  Sherman  ;  not  so  much  from  love  of 
Thomas  as  from  hatred  of  Sheridan,  —  a  hatred  which  did  honor 
to  Sheridan.  It  was  the  fixed  purpose  of  General  Grant  to  defeat 
this ;  not  from  unfriendliness  towards  Thomas,  but  from  a  profound 
admiration  of  the  military  genius  of  Sheridan,  quickened  by  a  very 
strong  personal  attachment  to  him. 

There  was  no  little  discussion  as  to  the  relative  claims  of  Sheri- 
dan and  Thomas.  Sheridan  undoubtedly  ranked  Thomas  in  com- 
mand, while  Meade  outranked  both.  General  Meade  however  was 
not  put  in  rivalry  with  these  two  distinguished  officers.  Not  rated 
so  high  in  military  skill  as  at  least  four  other  commanders  of  the 
Army,  it  had  happened  to  General  Meade  to  meet  the  chief  com- 
mander of  the  rebel  army  on  the  most  critical  battle-field  of  the  war, 
and  to  win  a  victory  which  may  well  be  termed  the  turning-point  in 
the  civil  struggle.  The  only  battle  fought  on  the  soil  of  a  Northern 
State,  it  was  quite  natural  that  an  extraneous  interest  -  should  attach 
to  Gettysburg,  and  it  is  almost  the  only  field  of  the  war  which 
steadily  attracts  the  visits  of  tourists  and  patriots  alike. 

In  the  end  there  was  no  doubt  complete  satisfaction  in  the  Army 
and  among  the  people  at  large  with  the  promotion  of  Sheridan,  which 
was  ordered  by  President  Grant  the  very  day  of  his  inauguration, 
directly  after  Sherman  had  been  gazetted  as  General.  There  was  at 
the  same  time  a  strong  popular  desire  that  the  heroic  achievements 
of  Meade  and  Thomas  should  be  marked  by  some  form  of  National 
recognition;  not,  however,  in  any  way  to  interfere  with  the  just 
reward  of  Sheridan.  The  proposition  to  make  three  Lieutenant- 
Generals  was  canvassed  in  military  and  Congressional  circles;  but 
the  general  aversion  to  a  large  military  establishment  in  time  of 
peace  prevented  its  favorable  consideration,  and  these  eminent  sol- 
diers received  no  attention  or  favor  from  Congress  after  their  work 
had  been  crowned  with  success  by  the  suppression  of  the  Rebellion 
and  the  complete  restoration  of  the  Union.  Thomas  left  Washing- 
ton soon  after  President  Grant's  inauguration  to  take  command  of 
the  Department  of  the  Pacific.  He  was  disappointed  in  his  expec- 


430  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

tations  and  depressed  in  feeling.  He  died  suddenly  a  year  later 
(March  28,  1870)  at  the  age  of  fifty-four.  His  death  was  noticed 
in  a  peculiarly  impressive  manner  by  a  meeting  of  the  two  branches 
of  Congress  in  the  Hall  of  Representatives,  to  hear  addresses  com- 
memorative of  his  character.  General  Meade,  born  a  year  earlier, 
survived  him  for  a  brief  period, — dying  November  6,  1872.  He 
had  evinced  no  dissatisfaction  with  the  measure  of  his  reward,  and 
had  been  especially  gratified  by  the  privilege  of  maintaining  his 
headquarters  in  Philadelphia  (from  which  city  he  was  originally 
appointed  to  the  Army)  and  of  passing  his  closing  years  on  the  soil 
of  the  noble  State  with  which  his  fame  is  inseparably  associated. 

Peculiar  circumstances  surrounded  the  career  of  Thomas,  im- 
parting great  interest  and  enlisting  on  his  behalf  a  strong  affection 
among  the  loyal  people  of  the  Nation.  The  popular  regret  that  he 
had  not  been  appropriately  recognized  by  the  National  Government 
for  his  great  services,  was  deepened  by  his  untimely  death.  The 
regard  usually  felt  by  soldiers  for  their  successful  leader  was  excep- 
tionally strong  in  his  case,  and  manifested  itself  in  many  acts  of 
personal  devotion.  He  was  commended  to  popular  favor  by  his 
steadfast  loyalty  to  the  Union,  when  he  was  subjected  to  all  the 
temptations  and  all  the  inducements  which  had  led  Lee  and  John- 
ston into  the. rebellion.  He,  like  them,  was  born  in  Virginia,  was 
reared  in  Virginia,  was  appointed  to  the  army  from  Virginia ;  but 
in  the  hour  of  peril  to  the  Government  he  remembered  that  he  was 
a  citizen  and  soldier  of  the  United  States,  and  had  sworn  to  uphold 
the  Constitution.  How  well  he  maintained  his  faith  to  his  country 
is  written  in  the  history  of  great  battles  and  great  victories ! 

The  grade  of  General  of  the  Army,  originally  provided  for  Wash- 
ington in  1799,  was  revived  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  honoring 
General  Grant.  As  originally  reported,  the  Act  was  to  be  exhausted 
with  one  appointment;  but  this  provision  was  struck  out  and  the 
grade  was  left  open  for  General  Sherman.  It  was  then  abolished, 
leaving  to  Sheridan  the  command  of  the  Army  as  Lieutenant-General 
(after  the  retirement  of  General  Sherman),  and  to  his  successor  with 
the  rank  of  Major-General,  —  thus  ultimately  establishing  the  com- 
mand as  it  had  existed  before  the  war.  The  Act  under  which  General 
Grant  received  his  highest  rank  authorized  the  President  "  whenever 
he  shall  deem  it  expedient,  to  appoint  a  General  of  the  Army  of  the 
United  States."  The  Act  passed  July  25,  1866,  and  General  Grant 
was  immediately  promoted.  A  year  and  a  half  later,  when  General 


MEETING  OF  FOIiTY-FIRST  CONGRESS.  431 

Grant  had  broken  all  personal  relations  with  President  Johnson,  there 
is  little  doubt  that  the  latter  would  have  interposed  his  discretion  and 
failed  to  "  deem  it  expedient  to  appoint  a  General  of  the  Army  of  the 
United  States."  Fortunately  his  disposition  at  the  time  was  friendly 
to  General  Grant,  and  led  him  to  do  with  gladness  what  the  loyal 
people  so  unanimously  desired  for  the  first  soldier  of  the  Nation. 


The  Forty-first  Congress  was  the  second  to  organize  under  the 
new  law  —  March  4th  1869.1  In  the  House  James  G.  Elaine  of 
Maine  was  elected  Speaker,  receiving  135  votes  to  57  cast  for 
Michael  C.  Kerr  of  Indiana.  Of  the  two  hundred  and  forty-three 
representatives  on  the  roll,  only  ninety-eight  had  served  in  the  pre- 
ceding Congress.  Among  the  one  hundred  and  forty-five  new  mem- 
bers were  some  men  who  afterwards  became  widely  and  favorably 
known  to  the  country. 

—  William  A.  Wheeler,  who  had  been  a  member  of  the  Thirty- 
seventh  Congress,  now  returned  from  his  native  district,  the  most 
northerly  of  New  York.     He  possessed  admirable  traits  for  a  legis- 
lator ;  being  a  conscientious  worker,  intelligent  in  the  business  of  the 
House,  and  implicitly  trusted  by  his  fellow-members.     He  was  a 
lawyer  and  a  man  of  affairs,  —  engaged  at  one  time  in  banking,  and 
for  many  years  president  of  an  important  railroad  company.    He  was 
well  trained  for  legislative  duty,  —  having  served  with  distinction  in 
both  branches  of  the  New- York  Legislature  and  having  been  a  mem- 
ber of  the  State  Constitutional  Convention  of  1867.     Not  prominent 
as  a  debater,  he  yet  spoke  with  directness  and  fluency,  and  was  always 
listened  to  by  the  House.     In  all  respects  he  was  an  admirable  repre- 
sentative, watchfully  caring  for  the  public  interests. 

—  His  Democratic  colleague,  Clarkson  Nott  Potter,  from  the  West- 
chester  district,  entered  the  House  at  forty-four  years  of  age.     The 
son  of  Bishop  Alonzo  Potter  and  grandson  of  President  Nott  of 
Union  College,  he  had  the  right  by  inheritance  to  the  talents  with 
which  he  was  endowed.     After  leaving  college  he  devoted  himself 
to  civil  engineering,  intending  to  adopt  it  as  his  profession,  but  his 
tastes  soon  inclined  him  to  the  law.     He  was  admitted  to  the  bar  of 
New  York  in  1847  and  in  a  few  years  acquired  a  practice  from  which 

1  For  complete  membership  of  Forty-first  Congress,  see  Appendix  D. 


432  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

he  derived  a  handsome  fortune.  He  was  well  adapted  to  Parlia- 
mentary life  and  promptly  acquired  high  rank  in  the  House.  So 
unfailing  were  his  courtesy  and  kindliness  that  his  personal  influence 
was  as  great  with  the  Republicans  as  with  the  Democrats,  among 
whom  almost  from  the  day  of  his  entrance  he  was  accorded  a  lead- 
ing position. 

—  Noah  Davis  took  his  seat  as  representative  from  the  strong  Re- 
publican district  of  Monroe  and  Orleans  in  Western  New  York. 
He  early  attained  distinction  at  the  bar  and  had  just  left  the  Su- 
preme Bench  of  his  State,  where  he  had  served  for  eleven  years 
with  eminent  credit.     That  high  dignity  had  been  conferred  upon 
him  before  he  was  forty  years  of  age.     He  did  not  find  service  in 
the  House  congenial  and  promptly  abandoned  all  thought  of  a  legis- 
lative career.     This  was  sincerely  regretted  by  his  personal  friends, 
who  had  knowledge  of  his  ability  and  foresaw  brilliant  success  for 
him  should  his  ambition  lead  him  to  remain  in  Congress.     His  sub- 
sequent service  on  the  Supreme  Bench  of  New  York  has  added  to  an 
already  exalted  reputation. 

—  Henry  W.  Slocum,  who  now  came  as  a  Democratic  representative 
from  the  city  of  Brooklyn,  was  a  graduate  of  West  Point  in  the 
class  of  1852,  but  remained  in  the  Regular  Army  only  about  four 
years.     After  his  resignation  he  studied  law  and  was  admitted  to  the 
bar  in  Syracuse.     When  the  civil  war  broke  out  he  joined  the  Vol- 
unteers and  rose  to  high  rank.     He  was  appointed  a  Major-General 
and  placed  in  command  of  a  corps.     His  record  as  an  officer  was 
without  blemish.     Though  allied  with  the  Democracy,  he  was  not 
a   bitter   partisan,  and  his   course   in   the    House  was   that   of  an 
enlightened  and  liberal  man. 

^-Eugene  Hale  entered  the  House  from  Maine  in  his  thirty-third 
year.  He  began  the  practice  of  law  as  soon  as  he  attained  his 
majority,  and  was  almost  immediately  appointed  county  attorney,  — 
a  position  which  he  held  for  nine  years.  His  success  at  the  bar  was 
very  marked.  Preceding  his  election  to  Congress  he  served  in  the 
State  Legislature  and  took  a  leading  position  in  a  body  of  able  men. 
In  the  House  of  Representatives  he  rose  rapidly  in  the  estimation  of 
his  associates  and  was  recognized  as  a  sound  and  careful  legislator, 
of  great  industry  in  the  committee-room,  and  of  decided  ability  as 
a  debater.  He  exhibited  an  exceptional  clearness  of  statement  and 
power  of  analysis.  He  possesses  the  peculiar  tact  and  aptitude 
which  insure  a  successful  career  in  a  Parliamentary  body.  He  has 


MEMBERS  OF  FORTY-FIRST  CONGRESS.  433 

always  been  fond  of  books,  and  has  constantly  grown  in  knowledge 
and  in  mental  discipline. 

The  Pennsylvania  delegation  received  some  valuable  accessions. 
Washington  Townsend  of  the  Chester  district  brought  to  his  public 
duties  a  large  experience  in  affairs,  a  good  standing  at  the  bar,  with 
the  common  sense,  integrity,  and  trustworthiness  found  so  gener- 
ally in  the  Society  of  Friends.  —  John  B.  Packer,  a  man  of  sturdy 
character  and  strong  parts,  came  from  the  Dauphin  district.  —  John 
Cessna  of  the  Bedford  district  had  served  many  years  in  the  Legis- 
lature of  Pennsylvania,  had  been  twice  Speaker  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  in  that  State,  and  had  given  much  attention  to  Par- 
liamentary law.  —  William  H.  Armstrong  from  the  Ly coming  district, 
was  a  graduate  of  Princeton,  a  lawyer,  and  extensively  engaged  in 
business.  —  James  S.  Negley,  from  one  of  the  Pittsburg  districts,  had 
served  in  the  Mexican  war  when  only  twenty  years  of  age,  and  at 
the  outbreak  of  the  Rebellion  was  appointed  a  Brigadier-General  in 
the  Volunteer  service.  He  joined  General  Sherman  in  the  South- 
West  in  the  autumn  of  1861  and  fought  through  the  war,  attaining 
an  excellent  reputation,  and  being  rewarded  with  the  rank  of  Major- 
General.  —  Daniel  J.  Morrell  of  the  Johnstown  district,  who  entered 
the  preceding  Congress,  had  grown  rapidly  in  his  standing  in  the 
House,  and,  next  to  Judge  Kelley,  was  quoted  as  an  authority  upon 
all  industrial  questions. 

George  W.  McCrary  and  F.  W.  Palmer  of  Iowa,  Jacob  A.  Ambler 
and  William  H.  Upson  of  Ohio,  Horatio  C.  Burchard  and  John  B. 
Hawley  of  Illinois,  and  Stephen  W.  Kellogg  of  Connecticut,  were 
among  the  members  who  rose  to  rank  and  usefulness  in  the  House* 

—  Gustavus1  A.  Finkelnburg,  a  young  German  who  spoke  English 
without  the  slightest  accent,  came  from  one  of  the  St.  Louis  districts 
and  rapidly  gained  the  respect  and  confidence  of  all  who  were  asso- 
ciated with  him.  —  S.  S.  Burdette,  a  man  of  force  and  readiness  as 
a  debater,  was  one  of  his  colleagues,  as  was  also  Erastus  Wells,  a 
Democrat  of  character  and  popularity. 

—  Omar  D.  Conger  of  Michigan  was  a  well-trained  debater  before 
he  entered  the  House,  and  at  once  took  a  prominent  position  in  its 
deliberations.     He  illustrated  the  virtue  of  persistence  in  its  highest 
degree,  and  had  the  art  of  annoying  his  opponent  in  discussion  to  the 
point  of  torture.  —  John  Beatty  of  Ohio,  who  had  served  a  brief 
period  in  the  preceding  Congress,  now  appeared  for  a  full  term.     He 
had  an  excellent  record  as  a  soldier,  was  a  successful  man  of  affairs, 

VOL.  II.  28 


434  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

and  was  endowed  with  a  firmness  of  purpose  which  could  not  be 
overcome  or  changed.  —  James  N.  Tyner  of  Indiana,  before  entering 
the  House,  had  been  an  official  of  the  Post-Office  Department,  and 
possessed  a  thorough  acquaintance  with  the  details  of  the  postal  sys- 
tem of  the  United  States.  His  knowledge  gave  him  prominence  at 
once  in  an  important  field  of  legislation,  and  aided  him  in  promptly 
securing  the  attention  and  respect  of  the  House. 

—  Thomas  Fitch  of  Nevada  was  one  of  the  noticeable  figures  on  the 
Republican  side  of  the  House.     Born  and  educated  in  New  York,  he 
was  an  editor  in  Wisconsin,  a  merchant  in  Missouri,  a  miner  on  the 
Pacifip  slope,  an  editor  in  San  Francisco,  a  member  of  the  California 
Legislature,  a  delegate  in  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  Nevada, 
reporter  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  that  State,  elected  to  Congress  — 
all  before  he  was  thirty  years  of  age.     The  singular  variety  of  his 
career  could  hardly  be  paralleled  outside  of  the  United  States.     If 
his  industry  had  been  equal  to  his  natural  gifts  he  would  have  been 
one  of  the  first  orators  in  the  country. 

—  Samuel  S.  Cox  had  served  eight  years  in  the  House  from  Ohio 
(1857  to  1865)  as  the  representative  of  the  Columbus  district.     At 
the  close  of  his  last  term  he  went  to  New  York  and  engaged  in  the 
practice  of  law  in   company  with  Mr.  Charlton  Lewis,  a  man  of 
brilliant  attainments  and  one  of  the  most  accomplished  graduates 
of  Yale.     But  it  was  not  possible  for  Mr.  Cox  to  keep  out  of  the 
political  field.     His  talent  for  the  stump,  his  ready  wit,  and,  above 
all,  his  good  nature  and  good  sense,  commended  him  to  the  New- 
York  Democrats,  and  he  appeared  in  the  Forty-first  Congress  from 
one  of  the  city  districts.     He  has  been  a  model  of  industry.     In  all 
the  pressure  of  Congressional  life,  to  the  duties  of  which  he  has 
given  assiduous  attention,  he  has  devoted  much  time  tcr  literature 
and  has  published  several  original  and  entertaining  books. 

The  Republican  representatives  from  the  South  were  in  part 
natives  of  the  States  which  sent  them  to  Congress.  Of  this  class 
Oliver  H.  Dockery  of  North  Carolina  was  the  leading  man.  Of 
those  who  had  gone  to  the  South  after  the  war  the  most  conspicuous 
were  Lionel  A.  Sheldon  of  Louisiana,  George  C.  McKee  of  Missis- 
sippi, Alfred  E.  Buck  and  Charles  W.  Buckley  of  Alabama.  Horace 
Maynard  fairly  represented  both  classes,  for  although  a  native  of 
Massachusetts  he  had  lived  in  Tennessee  for  nearly  a  quarter  of  a 
century  before  the  war,  and  was  in  all  respects  identified  with  the 
interests  of  the  South,  and  to  a  large  extent  shared  its  prejudices. 


MEMBERS  OF  FORTY-FIRST  CONGRESS.  435 

But  he  would  not  join  in  secession  and  turned  from  a  supporter  of 
slavery  to  be  a  radical  Republican.  He  was  a  man  of  considerable 
ability  and  great  moral  worth.  He  was  a  valuable  representative  of 
his  State  after  the  war. 

—  The  Worcester  District  of  Massachusetts  sent  George  Frisbie 
Hoar  as  its  representative.  He  is  the  son  of  Samuel  Hoar,  who  was 
honorably  conspicuous  in  the  early  days  of  the  anti-slavery  struggle. 
His  mother  was  a  daughter  of  the  illustrious  Roger  Sherman,  a  signer 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  Mr.  Hoar  is  a  graduate  of 
Harvard  College  and  of  the  Dane  Law  School.  For  twenty  years 
after  admission  to  the  bar  he  gave  his  time  and  his  energy  to  profes- 
sional pursuits,  uninterrupted  by  any  political  engagements,  except  a 
single  term  in  each  branch  of  the  Massachusetts  Legislature.  He 
began  service  in  the  House  of  Representatives  in  the  full  vigor 
of  manhood  in  the  forty-third  year  of  his  age,  keenly  alive  to  the 
great  interests  at  stake  in  the  Nation,  admirably  equipped  and 
disciplined  for  his  duties. 

Eminent  in  his  profession,  successful  in  his  political  career,  Mr. 
Hoar  superadds  accomplishments  which  neither  the  practice  of  law 
nor  participation  in  public  affairs  can  give.  He  has  been  a  student 
of  history,  has  cultivated  a  taste  for  literature,  and  has  acquired  a 
mass  of  information  which  proves  that  his  superb  private  library  has 
not  been  gathered  in  vain.  In  certain  fields  of  learning  Mr.  Hoar 
has  few  peers.  It  may,  indeed,  be  questioned  whether  his  knowl- 
edge of  our  Colonial  and  Revolutionary  history  does  not  surpass  that 
of  any  contemporary.  Nor  has  he  been  content  with  the  mere  mastery 
of  details,  with  the  collection  of  facts  and  incidents.  He  has  studied 
their  relations  and  their  interdependence,  has  analyzed  their  causes 
and  comprehended  their  effects.  Of  New  England  in  its  Provincial 
period  he  could  narrate  "  the  rise  of  religious  sects,  the  manners  of 
successive  generations,  the  revolutions  in  dress,  in  furniture,  in 
repasts,  in  public  amusements,"  even  more  accurately  than  Macaulay 
presented  the  same  features  of  the  same  time  in  Old  England.  Mr. 
Hoar  has  studied  the  era  with  a  devout  enthusiasm  for  the  character 
of  the  people,  —  a  people  from  whom  he  is  proud  to  claim  his  own 
descent,  and  whose  positive  virtues  (even  with  the  spice  of  acrid- 
ness  which  distinguished  them)  are  faithfully  reproduced  in  his  own 
person. 

In  truth  Mr.  Hoar  is  a  Puritan,  modified  by  the  religious  progress 
of  two  centuries,  but  still  a  Puritan  —  in  manners,  in  morals,  in  deep  N 


436  TWENTY  YEAKS  OF  CONGRESS. 

earnestness,  in  untiring  energy.  He  is  independent  without  self- 
assertion,  courageous  without  bravado,  conscientious  without  Phari- 
saism. In  intellectual  power,  amply  developed  and  thoroughly 
trained,  in  force  as  a  debater,  both  forensic  and  Parliamentary,  Mr. 
Hoar  is  entitled  to  high  rank.  And  his  rank  will  steadily  increase, 
for  his  mind  is  of  that  type  which  broadens  and  strengthens  by  con- 
flict in  the  arena  of  discussion. 

There  was  a  feeling  common  to  both  sides  of  the  House  that  a 
new  political  era  had  begun  with  the  inauguration  of  President  Grant. 
Perhaps  no  one  could  have  accurately  defined  what  was  expected, 
but  every  one  knew  that  the  peculiar  conflicts  and  troubles  which 
had  distinguished  the  years  of  Mr.  Johnson's  administration  would 
not  be  repeated.  General  Grant's  tendencies  were  liberal  and  non- 
partisan,  though  he  recognized  an  honorable  allegiance  to  the  Repub- 
lican party,  which  had  placed  him  in  power.  Many  of  his  personal 
friends  were  among  the  Democrats,  and  the  first  few  months  of  his 
administration  promised  peace  and  harmony  throughout  the  country. 
General  Grant  had  never  engaged  in  a  partisan  contention,  had  cast 
no  vote  since  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  and  was  therefore  free  from 
the  exasperating  influence  of  political  controversy.  The  Democratic 
members  of  the  House  shared  fully  in  the  kindly  feeling  towards  the 
new  President.  They  were  in  a  minority,  but  among  them  was  a 
large  proportion  of  able  men  —  men  of  experience  and  great  skill 
in  debate.  It  is  seldom  that  the  opposition  party  has  such  a  list 
of  champions  as  appeared  on  the  Democratic  side  of  the  House  in 
the  Forty-first  Congress.  »  Beck  of  Kentucky,  Randall  and  Wood- 
ward of  Pennsylvania,  Marshall  of  Illinois,  Brooks,  Wood,  Potter, 
Sloeum,  and  Cox  of  New  York,  Kerr,  Niblack,  Voorhees,^  and  Hoi- 
man  of  Indiana,  Eldridge  of  Wisconsin,  Van  Trump  and  Morgan  of 
Ohio,  unitedly  presented  a  strong  array  of  Parliamentary  ability. 
In  different  degrees  they  were  all  partisans,  but  of  a  manly  type. 
Earnest  discussion  and  political  antagonism  were  not  allowed  by 
them  to  destroy  friendly  relations. 


CHAPTER    XVIII. 

SENATE  IN  THE  FORTY-FIRST  CONGRESS.  —HANNIBAL  HAMLIN  ELECTED  FOR  THE  FOURTH 
TERM.  — MATTHEW  H.  CARPENTER.  — His  DOUBLE  LOAD  OF  WORK.  — CARL  SCHURZ. 

—  ALLEN  G.  THURMAN.  — WILLIAM  G.  BROWNLOW.— THOMAS   FRANCIS  BAYARD. 

—  GOVERNOR  FENTON.  —  WILLIAM  A.  BUCKINGHAM.  —  DANIEL  D.  PRATT.  —  JOHN 
SCOTT. —  JOHN   P.   STOCKTON.  —  SOUTHERN  REPRESENTATION   COMPLETE.  —  CHAR- 
ACTER OF  SENATORS  AND  REPRESENTATIVES.  —  UNJUST  ABUSE.  —  SOUTHERN  RESIST- 
ANCE TO   CARPET-BAG  RULE.  —  ADMISSION  OF  A  COLORED  SENATOR.  —  HIRAM  R. 
REVELS  OF  MISSISSIPPI.  —  SUCCESSOR  TO  JEFFERSON  DAVIS.  —  THE  MORAL  OF  IT. 

—  PRESIDENT  GRANT  AND  THE  TENURE-OF-OFFICE  ACT.  —  HOUSE  VOTES  TO  REPEAL 
THE  ACT.  —  DELAY  IN  SENATE.  —  POSITION  OF  MR.  TRUMBULL,  MR.  EDMUNDS  AND 
MR.  SCHURZ.  —  DISAGREEMENT  BETWEEN  >.  ^NATE  AND  HOUSE.  —  CONFERENCE  COM- 
MITTEE. —  PRACTICAL  REPEAL  OF  THE  A   r.  —  DEATH  OF  WILLIAM  PITT  FESSEN- 
DEN.  — His  CHARACTER. 

rTIHE  changes  in  the  Senate  on  the  4th  of  March,  1869,  were 
_JL  notable  in  the  character  both  of  the  retiring  and  incoming 
members. 

—  Hannibal  Hamlin  from  Maine,  entered  the  Senate  for  the  fourth 
time.     His  first  election  in  1848,  to  fill  out  the  term  of  ex-Governor 
Fairfield,  was  for  three  years.    He  resigned  at  the  close  of  his  second 
term  to  accept  the  governorship  of  his  State,  and  midway  in  his  third 
term  he  was  promoted  to  the  Vice-Presidency.     From  his  earliest 
participation  in  public  life  Mr.  Hamlin  enjoyed  an  extraordinary 
popularity.     Indeed,  with  a  single  exception,  he  was  never  defeated 
for  any  office  in  Maine  for  which  he  was  a  candidate.     In  the  great 
Whig  uprising  of  1840  he  was  the  Democratic  candidate  for  Con- 
gress in  the  Penobscot  district,  and  was   beaten  by  Elisha  H.  Allen, 
afterwards  widely  known  as  Chief  Justice  of  Hawaii  and  Minister 
from   that   kingdom   to  the  United  States.      The  candidates  were 
warm  personal  friends  before  and  after  the  contest. 

—  Matthew  H.  Carpenter  succeeded  Mr.  Doolittle  as  senator  from 
Wisconsin.      He  was  forty-five  years  of  age  and  had  gained  high 
reputation  as  a  lawyer.     He  had  become  well  known  at  the  National 
Capital   by  his   appearance   in   the    Supreme  Court,  and  from  his 

437 


438  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

employment  by  Secretary  Stanton,  during  the  war,  in  some  govern- 
ment cases  of  importance.  He  was  a  native  of  Vermont,  but  his 
active  career  was  in  the  North- West.  His  ambition  as  a  lad  was  for 
the  army;  and  he  spent  some  time  at  West  Point,  but  left  without 
graduating,  and  devoted  himself  to  the  law.  He  completed  his  studies 
in  the  office  of  Mr.  Choate  in  Boston,  and  began  the  practice  of  his 
profession  in  Wisconsin.  Not  long  after  his  settlement  in  his  new 
home,  he  lost  his  sight  from  over-use  of  his  eyes  in  study,  and  for  a 
period  of  three  years  was  entirely  blind.  Judge  Black,  his  intimate 
friend  and  eulogist,  believed  that  this  appalling  calamity  wrought 
Mr.  Carpenter  great  good  in  the  end  :  "It  elevated,  refined,  strength- 
ened all  his  faculties.  Before  that  time  much  reading  had  made 
him  a  very  full  man:  when  reading  became  impossible,  reflection 
digested  his  knowledge  into  practical  wisdom.  He  perfectly  arranged 
his  storehouse  of  facts  and  cases,  and  pondered  intently  upon  the  first 
principles  of  jurisprudence." 

His  service  in  the  Senate  may  rather  be  termed  brilliant  than 
useful.  The  truth  is  that  Mr.  Carpenter  attempted  to  do  what  no 
man  can  accomplish:  he  tried  to  maintain  his  full  practice  at  the 
bar,  and  discharge  his  full  duties  as  senator  at  the  same  time.  His 
strength  was  not  equal  to  the  double  load.  He  was  endowed  with 
a  high  order  of  ability.  If  he  had  given  all  his  time  to  the  Senate, 
or  all  to  the  Bar,  he  would  have  found  few  peers  in  either  field  of 
intellectual  combat.  Aside  from  the  weight  of  his  argument,  his 
manner  of  speech  was  attractive.  He  had  an  agreeable  voice,  pre- 
cisely adapted  in  volume  and  tone  to  the  Senate  Chamber.  He  was 
affluent  in  language,  graceful  in  manner,  and,  beyond  all,  was  gifted 
with  that  quality  —  rare,  indefinable,  but  recognized  by  every  one  — 
which  constitutes  the  orator. 

—  Carl  Schurz  now  took  his  seat  as  a  senator  from  Missouri.  He 
was  born  a  Prussian  subject,  and  had  just  completed  his  fortieth 
year.  He  had  been  well  educated  in  the  gymnasium  at  Cologne, 
and  in  a  partial  course  at  the  university  of  Bonn.  Though  retain- 
ing a  marked  German  accent,  he  quickly  learned  to  speak  English 
with  fluency  and  eloquence,  and  yet  with  occasional  idiomatic  errors 
discernible  when  his  words  are  printed.  He  took  active  part  before 
German  audiences,  for  Fremont,  in  the  Presidential  canvass  of  1856, 
and  began  to  make  public  addresses  in  English  in  1858,  when  he 
espoused  the  cause  of  Mr.  Lincoln  in  the  famous  contest  with 
Douglas.  He  was  widely  sought  as  a  speaker  in  both  of  Mr. 


CARL  SCHURZ,  SENATOR  FROM  MISSOURI.  439 

Lincoln's  contests  for  the  Presidency,  1860  and  1864.  In  the  latter 
year  he  was  especially  forcible,  attractive,  and  effective.  Subse- 
quently he  fell  off,  apparently  in  strength,  certainly  in  popularity. 
As  a  lecturer  he  lost  his  hold  upon  the  lyceum,  and  as  a  political 
orator  he  began  to  repeat  himself,  not  merely  in  sense  but  in 
phrase.  As  a  senator  he  did  not  meet  the  expectation  of  his 
friends.  His  failure  was  in  large  part  due  to  the  fact  that  he  has 
not  the  power  of  speaking  extempore.  He  requires  careful  and  studi- 
ous preparation,  and  has  never  attained  the  art  of  off-hand  parlia- 
mentary discussion,  which  Colonel  Benton  likened  to  "  shooting  on 
the  wing."  So  deficient  is  Mr.  Schurz  in  this  talent,  that  he  has 
been  known  to  use  a  manuscript  in  an  after-dinner  response,  a  style 
of  speech  whose  chief  merit  consists  in  its  spontaneity,  with  apt 
reference  to  incidents  which  could  not  possibly  be  foreseen. 

The  loss  of  Mr.  Schurz's  popularity  —  a  popularity  that  was  very 
marked  in  the  earlier  period  of  his  career  —  is  due  in  part  to  certain 
unsteady  and  erratic  tendencies,  some  of  which  are  in  strong  con- 
trast with  characteristics  that  are  recognized  as  belonging  in  an 
especial  degree  to  his  race.  Through  all  the  centuries  since  Tacitus 
drew  his  vivid  picture  of  the  habits  and  manners  of  the  Germans, 
their  attachment,  it  might  almost  be  called  their  passion,  for  home, 
has  been  a  marked  and  meritorious  feature  of  their  character.  To 
Fatherland  first,  and  then  to  whatever  country  fate  or  fortune  may 
draw  them,  their  devotion  is  proverbial.  This  admirable  trait  seems 
altogether  wanting  in  Mr.  Schurz.  When  he  left  Germany  he  lived 
for  three  years  in  other  countries  of  Europe,  —  first  in  Switzerland, 
then  in  France,  then  in  England.  In  1852  he  came  to  America, 
and  resided  first  in  Pennsylvania,  then  in  Wisconsin,  then  in  Michi- 
gan, then  in  Missouri,  and  then  in  New  York.  He  has  not  become 
rooted  and  grounded  anywhere,  has  never  established  a  home,  is  not 
identified  with  any  community,  is  not  interwoven  with  the  interests 
of  any  locality  or  of  any  class,  has  no  fixed  relation  to  Church  or 
State,  to  professional,  political,  or  social  life,  has  acquired  none  of 
that  companionship  and  confidence  which  unite  old  neighbors  in  the 
closest  ties,  and  give  to  friendship  its  fullest  development,  its  most 
gracious  attributes. 

The  same  unsteadiness  has  entered  as  a  striking  feature  in  the 
public  career  of  Mr.  Schurz.  The  party  he  upheld  yesterday  met 
with  his  bitterest  denunciations  the  day  before,  and  to-morrow  he 
will  support  the  political  organization  of  whose  measures  he  is  the 


440  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

most  merciless  censor  to-day.  He  boasts  himself  incapable  of  attach- 
ment to  party,  and  in  that  respect  radically  differs  from  the  great 
body  of  his  American  fellow-citizens.  He  cannot  even  comprehend 
that  exalted  sentiment  of  honorable  association  in  public  life  which 
holds  together  successive  generations  of  men,  —  a  sentiment  which  in 
the  United  States  causes  the  Democrat  to  reverence  the  memory  of 
Jefferson  and  Jackson  and  Douglas,  which  causes  his  opponent  to 
glory  in  the  achievements  of  Hamilton  and  Clay  and  Lincoln ;  a  sen- 
timent which  in  England  has  bound  the  Whigs  in  a  common  faith 
and  common  glory,  from  Walpole  to  Gladstone,  and  their  more 
conservative  rivals  in  a  creed  of  loyalty  whose  disciples,  from 
Bolingbroke  to  Beaconsfield,  include  many  of  the  noblest  of  British 
patriots. 

For  these  party  associations,  to  whose  influence,  under  the  just 
restraint  of  intelligent  patriotism,  the  wisest  legislation  is  due,  Mr. 
Schurz  has  neither  approbation  nor  appreciation.  He  aspires  to  the 
title  of  "  Independent,"  and  has  described  his  own  position  as  that 
of  a  man  sitting  on  a  fence,  with  clean  boots,  watching  carefully 
which  way  he  may  leap  to  keep  out  of  the  mud.  A  critic  might, 
without  carping,  suggest  that  it  is  the  duty  of  an  earnest  man  to 
disregard  the  bespattering  which  fidelity  to  principle  often  incurs, 
and  that  a  beaten  path  to  safe  place  for  one's  self  is  not  an  inspiring 
or  worthy  object  of  statesmanship. 

Nor  is  Mr.  Schurz's  independence  of  party  more  pronounced  or 
more  complete  than  his  independence  of  true  American  feeling.  He 
has  taken  no  pride  in  appearing  under  the  simple  but  lofty  title  of  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States.  He  stands  rather  as  a  representative 
German-American,  He  has  made  his  native  nationality  a  political 
resource,  and  has  thereby  fallen  short  of  the  full  honor  due  to  his 
adopted  nationality.  The  large  body  of  American  citizens  of  Ger- 
man birth  are  intensely  attached  to  their  new  home,  and  seek  the 
most  complete  identification  of  themselves  and  their  descendants 
with  the  development  and  destiny  of  the  Great  Republic.  This  is 
wise,  and  is  in  accordance  with  the  best  traditions  and  best  aspira- 
tions of  the  Teutonic  race.  But  to  Mr.  Schurz  the  Republic  is  not 
great !  "  This  country,"  said  he,  in  his  Centennial  lecture,  "  is  ma- 
terially great,  but  morally  small." 

• — Allen  G.  Thurman  came  suddenly  into  prominence  in  1867. 
He  was  the  Democratic  nominee  for  Governor  of  Ohio  against 
Rutherford  B.  Hayes.  For  the  three  years  immediately  preceding 


SENATOR  BROWNLOW  OF  TENNESSEE.  443 

of  three  other  States.  In  early  life  he  was  a  Methodist  preacher  of 
peculiar  earnestness  and  force,  with  special  adaptations  to  the  people 
among  whom  his  ministry  lay.  To  his  Church  he  always  retained 
an  intense  attachment  and  devotion.  In  his  later  years  he  pub- 
lished a  work  on  Methodism,  under  the  strange  title  of  "  The  Iron 
Wheel  examined,  and  its  False  Spokes  extracted."  He  came  into 
public  and  general  notice  as  the  editor  of  the  Knoxville  Whig,  which, 
though  printed  in  the  mountains  of  Tennessee  when  facilities  of 
communication  were  restricted,  attained  wide  circulation  and  influ- 
ence. Its  editor  was  known  as  "  Parson "  Brownlow,  a  sobriquet 
which  attached  to  him  through  life.  His  paper  was  strongly  anti- 
Jackson,  warmly  espoused  the  cause  of  Mr.  Clay,  and  was  distin- 
guished in  its  editorials  by  a  treatment  of  public  questions  so  original 
that  for  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century  it  was  known  and  quoted  by 
the  journals  of  the  whole  country. 

But  the  odd  and  humorous  editor,  hitherto  notorious  for  his  parti- 
san intensity  and  for  the  extravagance  of  his  diction,  was  suddenly 
transformed  into  a  moral  hero.  When  the  wild  movement  for  seces- 
sion swept  over  Tennessee,  and  carried  with  it  even  such  men  as 
John  Bell,  Brownlow  took  his  stand  for  the  Union.  Threats  could 
not  move  him,  persecution  could  not  break  him,  the  prison  had  no 
terrors  for  him.  His  devotion  to  the  National  cause  did  not  mean 
simply  the  waving  of  the  flag  and  the  delivery  of  patriotic  orations : 
it  meant  cold  and  hunger,  separation  from  his  family,  loss  of  property, 
possibly  loss  of  life.  He  endured  all,  and  faced  his  bloodthirsty 
enemies  with  a  courage  superior  to  their  own.  He  won  their  respect 
by  his  brave  resistance,  and  was  finally  released  from  jail  and  ban- 
ished from  the  Confederacy.  He  came  North,  and  remained  until 
the  progress  of  the  National  arms  enabled  him  to  return  to  his 
home.  His  patriotic  devotion  was  rewarded  by  the  boundless  con- 
fidence of  the  loyal  people  of  Tennessee.  At  the  close  of  the  war 
he  was  chosen  Governor,  and  was  now  promoted  to  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States  —  too  late  for  the  exertion  of  his  once  strong 
mental  qualities,  but  early  enough  to  testify  by  his  presence  the 
triumph  of  loyalty  and  manhood  in  the  bloody  strife  through  which 
he  had  passed. 

—  Thomas  F.  Bayard,  who  entered  the  Senate  at  the  opening  of 
the  Forty-first  Congress,  was  little  known  to  the  public,  except  as 
a  member  of  a  family  which  had  been  for  a  considerable  period 
prominent  in  the  political  affairs  of  Delaware.  His  service  in  the 


444  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Senate  has  been  remarkable  for  one  leading  characteristic,  —  the 
power,  or  the  accidental  fortune,  to  create  a  public  impression  as 
to  his  career  precisely  the  reverse  of  its  actual  history.  The  illus- 
trations are  many:  — 

In  financial  circles  Mr.  Bayard  has  been  held  as  a  fair  and  con- 
servative exponent  of  sound  views,  a  jealous  guardian  of  the  public 
credit.  As  matter  of  fact,  he  joined  in  a  political  crusade  to  enforce 
the  payment  of  the  National  debt  in  depreciated  paper  money,  and 
almost  the  first  vote  he  ever  gave  in  the  Senate  was  against  the  bill 
declaring  the  National  debt  to  be  payable  in  coin.  He  voted  to 
except  specifically  the  fifteen  hundred  millions  of  5-20  bonds  from 
coin  payment,  argued  earnestly  in  favor  of  taxing  the  bonds  of  the 
Government,  refused  to  support  the  bill  for  the  resumption  of  specie 
payments,  and  united  with  others  in  a  National  movement  to  repeal 
the  Act  after  it  had  been  for  a  considerable  period  in  operation. 

On  the  Southern  question,  in  all  its  phases,  Mr.  Bayard  has  been 
proclaimed  by  his  supporters  as  calm,  considerate,  and  just.  In  truth 
he  has  gone  as  far  as  the  most  rancorous  rebel  leader  of  the  South, 
touching  the  Reconstruction  laws  and  the  suffrage  of  the  negro. 
In  the  Forty-second  Congress,  in  an  official  report  on  the  condition 
of  the  South,  Mr.  Bayard  joined  with  the  minority  of  the  committee 
in  the  distinct  avowal  that  negro  suffrage  would  practically  cease 
when  the  Republican  party  should  be  defeated.  These  are  the  exact 
words  in  which  Mr.  Bayard  concurred :  "  But  whenever  that  party  (the 
Republican)  shall  go  down,  as  go  down  it  will  at  some  time  not  long  in 
the  future,  that  will  be  the  end  of  the  political  power  of  the  negro  among 
white  men  on  this  continent.''''  When  Mr.  Bayard  united  with  other 
Democrats  in  this  declaration  the  right  of  the  negro  to  vote  had 
already  been  protected  by  an  Amendment  to  the  Constitution.  His 
language  was,  therefore,  a  distinct  threat  to  override  the  Constitution 
in  order  to  strip  the  negro  of  the  political  power  which  the  Constitu- 
tion had  conferred  upon  him.  This  threat  was  so  serious  and  so  law- 
less that  it  should  have  received  more  attention  than  was  bestowed 
upon  it  when  first  put  forth.  It  was  not  uncommon  to  hear  brazen 
defiance  of  Constitutional  obligations  from  Southern  speakers  address- 
ing Southern  audiences  for  mere  sensational  effect.  But  this  was  an 
announcement  made  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  not  hastily 
and  angrily  in  the  excitement  of  debate,  but  with  reflection  and  delib- 
eration, in  an  official  report  which  had  been  studied  for  months  and 
subscribed  to  in  writing  by  Mr.  Bayard. 


SENATOR  BAYARD  OF  DELAWARE.  445 

The  common  apprehension  assigns  to  Mr.  Bayard  a  high  standing 
at  the  bar  and  positive  rank  as  a  man  of  culture.  As  a  lawyer 
Mr.  Bayard  has  doubtless  cherished  no  ambition  as  he  has  attained 
no  prominence,  while  in  point  of  education  he  never  enjoyed  facili- 
ties beyond  those  of  the  common  school  or  the  private  academy. 
Originally  destined  for  mercantile  life,  he  did  not  receive  in  his  early 
years  the  benefit  of  liberal  training;  nor  did  his  tastes  lead  him 
into  any  special  personal  pursuit  of  literature  or  science,  or  even 
into  a  close,  careful  study  of  the  history  of  his  own  country,  —  a 
study  which  would  have  exempted  his  public  career  from  some  of 
his  more  notable  mistakes. 

For  obvious  reasons  Mr.  Bayard  has  acquired  exceptional  popu- 
larity in  the  South,  and  especially  with  Southern  men  in  Congress. 
When  those  who  participated  in  the  Rebellion  were  freed  from  their 
disabilities  and  regained  their  old  seats  in  the  Senate  and  House, 
they  found  Mr.  Bayard  in  position,  and  they  naturally  accepted  him 
as  a  leader.  It  was  fresh  in  the  memory  of  these  men  that  Mr. 
Bayard's  friendship  for  them  had  been  constant  and  unremitting; 
that  even  in  the  fatal  folly  and  wrong  of  secession  in  1861  they 
had  his  sympathy,  to  such  an  extent  that  he  advocated  in  a  public 
speech  the  policy  of  permitting  them  to  separate  peacefully  from 
the  Union.  He  spoke  earnestly  against  the  use  of  the  National 
power  to  hold  these  States  to  their  duty  as  members  of  a  common 
government,  and  expressed  the  belief  that  it  would  be  better  to  have 
two  republics,  than  to  have  one  strong  enough  to  command  respect 
for  its  laws  and  to  enforce  obedience  at  the  cannon's  mouth.  The 
avowal  of  these  opinions  north  of  the  National  Capital  was  greater  aid 
to  the  Southern  conspirators1  than  if  Mr.  Bayard  had  openly  joined 
their  councils  or  expended  his  valor  in  the  ranks  of  their  army. 

It  was  evidently  not  deemed  prudent  by  Mr.  Bayard  to  repeat  his 
disunion  views.  After  Fort  Lafayette,  at  Mr.  Seward's  command, 
had  opened  its  doors  to  men  who  publicly  expressed  disloyal  senti- 
ments in  the  North,  Mr.  Bayard  gave  to  the  rebellion  the  benefit  of 
his  silence.  The  great  struggle  went  on ;  myriads  of  patriots  stepped 
to  the  ranks  of  the  Union  Army ;  the  people  were  fired  with  love  of 
country ;  from  every  loyal  platform  and  every  loyal  pulpit  rang  out 
words  of  faith  and  hope  for  the  cause  and  for  its  brave  defenders. 
But  Mr.  Bayard's  silence  was  unbroken  even  by  the  thunders  of 
Gettysburg  almost  within  sound  of  his  home,  or  by  the  closing  and 
complete  triumph  of  the  National  arms.  He  had  spoken  words  of 


446  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

sympathy  and  encouragement  to  the  enemies  of  the   Union.      He 
never  uttered  a  word  of  cheer  for  its  friends.1 

The  organization  of  Governor  Fenton's  friends  in  New  York, 
which  had  failed  to  secure  him  the  nomination  for  Vice-President 
at  the  Chicago  Convention,  was  strong  enough  to  elect  him  to  the 
Senate,  even  against  so  worthy  a  competitor  as  Governor  Morgan, 
who  had  the  advantage  of  being  in  the  seat.  It  was  a  strong  attes- 
tation of  Mr.  Fenton's  strength  in  his  own  State.  —  William  A. 
Buckingham,  whose  distinction  as  War  Governor  of  Connecticut  had 
reached  far  beyond  the  limits  of  his  State,  was  now  promoted  to 
a  seat  in  the  Senate. — Daniel  D.  Pratt,  afterwards  Commissioner  of 
Internal  Kevenue,  appeared  from  Indiana  as  the  successor  of  Thomas 
A.  Hendricks.  —  John  Scott,  whose  father  had  been  a  representative 
in  Congress,  succeeded  Mr.  Buckalew  as  senator  from  Pennsylvania. 
Mr.  Scott  had  taken  little  part  in  politics,  and  had  been  altogether 
devoted  to  his  profession  as  a  lawyer ;  but  his  service  in  the  Senate 
was  distinguished  by  intelligence  and  fidelity.  No  man  wrought  so 

1  A  few  extracts  from  Mr.  Bayard's  speech  of  July  9,  1861,  at  Dover,  Del.,  will 
exhibit  his  spirit  of  disloyalty  to  the  Union  of  the  States.  Mr.  Bayard  said,  — 

"And  is  such  a  war  necessary  for  the  peace  and  happiness  of  the  United  States? 
For  half  a  century  we  have  lived  at  peace  with  Great  Britain,  with  her  Canadian  posses- 
sions upon  our  Northern  border.  Upon  the  South,  Mexico  holds  her  government  with 
no  threats  of  trouble  to  us  or  our  citizens.  Why,  then,  may  not  two  American  confedera- 
cies exist  side  by  side  without  conflict,  each  emulating  the  other  in  the  progress  of  civilization? 
The  coterminous  kingdoms  of  Europe  offer  many  examples  of  similar  peace  and  pros- 
perity. With  such  a  sickening  alternative  as  civil  ivar,  why  should  not  the  experiment  at  least 
be  made?  It  is  this  question  we  are  to  pass  upon  to-day."  .  .  . 

"If  peace  will  restore  and  secure  these  blessings  to  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
even  though  a  number  of  their  former  associates  have  gone  off  under  a  new  and  inde- 
pendent organization,  in  the  name  of  Heaven  let  us  raise  our  voice  for  it  !  Shall  this  earnest 
cry  for  peace  be  stifled  at  the  bidding  of  a  host  of  fanatical  and  cowardly  editors,  aided 
by  an  army  of  greedy  contractors  and  public  leeches,  stimulating  an  ignorant  mob  to 
denounce  and  attack  us  as  traitors  and  secessionists?  "... 

"  You  and  I  are  citizens  of  Delaware.  To  her  laws  and  government  we  owe  allegiance. 
Through  our  State  we  owe  allegiance  to  the  Federal  Government,  of  which  she  is  a,  member. 
But  as  State  officials  can  command  us  to  no  duty  unknown  to  State  laws,  neither  can  a 
Federal  officer  claim  any  authority  over  us  in  matters  not  within  his  constitutional  and 
legal  control.  A  palpable  infraction  of  our  written  charter  of  government  by  our  rulers, 
justifies  disobedience  upon  the  part  of  a  citizen  as  much  as  lawful  orders  are  entitled  to 
loyal  compliance." 

[But  who,  as  Mr.  "Webster  had  asked  Mr.  Hayne  thirty  years  before,  was  to  judge 
of  "the  palpable  infraction  of  our  written  charter  of  government"?  Was  it  the  Judi- 
cial department  of  that  government?  Or  was  it  Mr.  Bayard  and  his  disloyal  associates 
in  Delaware  to  whom  he  was  addressing  words  of  hostility  to  the  National  Administra- 
tion and  of  infidelity  to  the  Union  of  the  States?  It  is  significant  that  Mr.  Bayard 
acknowledged  allegiance  to  the  National  Government  only  as  he  owed  it  through  his 
State.  This  was  the  rank  heresy  upon  which  the  leaders  of  the  Southern  rebellion 
sought  their  justification.] 


SENATORS  FROM  RECONSTRUCTED  STATES.      447 

effectively  in  exposing  to  the  condemnation  of  public  opinion  the 
evil  work  of  the  Ku-Klux  organizations  in  the  South.  At  the  close 
of  his  term  he  returned  to  the  practice  of  law,  and  was  honored  by 
the  appointment  of  chief  solicitor  to  one  of  the  largest  corporations 
in  the  world  —  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  Company.  —  Thomas  C. 
McCreery  took  his  seat  as  senator  from  Kentucky.  Originally  a 
lawyer,  he  had  for  many  years  devoted  his  attention  to  farming.  He 
had  acquired  prominence  in  his  party  by  carefully  preparing  and  ac- 
curately committing  to  memory  a  political  oration  each  year,  which 
he  delivered  at  the  Democratic  State  Convention.  He  was  an  up- 
right, good-natured  man,  with  extreme  Democratic  views  always 
amiably  expressed.  —  John  P.  Stockton,  who  was  deprived  of  his 
seat  three  years  before  under  circumstances  which  seemed  to  impose 
a  hardship  upon  him,  now  entered  with  undisputed  credentials  from 
New  Jersey. 

The  senators  first  admitted  from  the  reconstructed  States  were 
about  equally  divided  between  native  Southerners  and  those  who  had 
gone  from  the  North  at  the  close  of  the  war ;  but  all  were  Republi- 
cans except  one  in  Virginia  and  one  in  Georgia.  John  F.  Lewis  and 
John  W.  Johnston  were  natives  of  the  State,  belonging  to  old  and 
influential  families.  The  former  was  a  Republican:  the  latter  a 
Democrat.  —  In  North  Carolina,  John  Pool  was  an  old  Whig,  promi- 
nent in  the  politics  of  his  State  before  the  war.  Joseph  C.  Abbot 
was  from  New  Hampshire,  a  Brigadier-General  in  the  Union  Army. 
—  Thomas  J.  Robertson  of  South  Carolina  was  a  native  of  the 
State,  and  Frederick  A.  Sawyer  was  from  Massachusetts,  but  had 
lived  in  the  State  since  1859.  —  Joshua  Hill  and  Thomas  M.  Nor- 
wood of  Georgia  were  both  Southern  men  by  birth.  Mr.  Hill  was 
a  representative  in  the  Thirty-fifth  and  Thirty-sixth  Congresses,  and 
when  the  State  seceded  refused  to  resign.  He  joined  the  Republican 
party  after  the  war.  Mr.  Norwood  entered  the  Senate  as  a  Demo- 
crat. —  Thomas  W.  Osborn  and  Abijah  Gilbert,  senators  from  Florida, 
were  both  from  the  North,  the  former  a  native  of  New  Jersey,  the 
latter  of  New  York.  —  The  senators  from  Alabama,  Willard  Warner 
and  George  E.  Spencer,  the  former  born  in  Ohio,  the  latter  in  New 
York,  were  both  officers  of  the  Union  Army.  —  Hiram  R.  Revels  and 
Adelbert  Ames  were  the  senators  from  Mississippi.  The  former  was 
born  in  the  South.  The  latter  was  born  in  Maine,  was  a  graduate 
of  West  Point  and  became  highly  distinguished  as  an  officer  in  the 
war.  —  John  S.  Harris  and  William  Pitt  Kellogg  were  senators  from 


448  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Louisiana.  The  former  was  a  native  of  New  York.  The  latter  was 
born  in  Vermont,  but  had  long  resided  in  Illinois.  He  served  in  the 
Union  Army  with  the  rank  of  Colonel  in  the  Donelson  and  Shiloh 
campaigns  under  General  Grant.  —  The  senators  from  Texas,  Morgan 
C.  Hamilton  and  J.  W.  Flanagan,  were  both  natives  of  the  South 
and  long  domiciled  in  Texas.  —  Of  the  Tennessee  senators  one  was 
born  in  the  South  and  one  in  the  North. 

The  representation  of  the  Southern  States  being  complete  in  both 
Houses  before  the  close  of  the  first  session  of  the  Forty-first  Con- 
gress, an  impartial  estimate  could  be  made  of  the  strength  and 
capacity  of  the  men  who  were  opprobriously  designated  in  the  South 
either  as  Carpet-baggers  or  Scalawags.  It  was  soon  ascertained  that 
the  unstinted  abuse  heaped  upon  them  as  a  class  was  unjust  and  often 
malicious.  The  large  proportion,  and  notably  those  who  remained 
in  Congress  beyond  two  years,  were  men  of  character  and  respecta- 
bility, in  many  cases  indeed  of  decided  cleverness.  But  their  mis- 
fortune was  that  they  had  assumed  a  responsibility  which  could  be 
successfully  discharged  only  by  men  of  extraordinary  endowments. 
If  any  considerable  number  of  them  had  been  gifted  in  a  high  degree 
as  orators,  they  would  have  had  great  advantages  among  a  people 
who  rate  mere  eloquence  above  its  true  value.  If  any  of  them  had 
been  men  of  large  fortune  (invested  in  Southern  property),  and  able 
to  make  lavish  expenditure,  they  could  have  produced  a  deep  impres- 
sion upon  a  people  more  given  to  admiration  of  mere  wealth  than 
the  people  of  the  North.  But  of  the  entire  list  of  Republican  sena- 
tors and  representatives  from  the  reconstructed  States,  there  was  not 
one  who  was  regarded  as  exceptionally  eloquent  or  exceptionally 
rich ;  and  hence  they  were  compelled  to  enter  the  contest  without 
personal  prestige,  without  adventitious  aid  of  any  kind.  They  were 
doomed  to  a  hopeless  struggle  against  the  influence,  the  traditions, 
the  hatred  of  a  large  majority  of  the  white  men  of  the  South. 

The  Fifteenth  Article  of  Amendment  to  the  Constitution,  now 
pending  and  about  to  be  adopted,  would  confirm  the  colored  man's 
elective  franchise  and  add  the  right  of  holding  office.  One  of  the 
senators  just  admitted  from  Mississippi  in  advance  of  the  ratification 
of  the  amendment  (Hiram  R.  Revels)  was  a  colored  man  of  respect- 
able character  and  intelligence.  He  sat  in  the  seat  which  Jefferson 
Davis  had  wrathfully  deserted  to  take  up  arms  against  the  Republic 
and  become  the  ruler  of  a  hostile  government.  Poetic  justice,  his- 
toric revenge,  personal  retribution  were  all  complete  when  Mr. 


PRESIDENT  GRANT'S  ADMINISTRATION.  449 

Revels'  name  was  called  on  the  roll  of  the  Senate.  But  his  presence, 
while  demonstrating  the  extent  to  which  the  assertion  of  equal 
rights  had  been  carried,  served  to  increase  and  stimulate  the  South- 
ern resistance  to  the  whole  system  of  Republican  reconstruction. 
Those  who  anxiously  and  intelligently  studied  the  political  situation 
in  the  South  could  see  how  unequal  the  contest  would  be  and  how 
soon  the  men  who  organized  the  rebellion  would  again  wield  the 
political  power  of  their  States  —  wield  it  lawfully  if  they  could,  but 
unlawfully  if  they  must;  peaceably  if  that  would  suffice,  but  vio- 
lently if  violence  in  their  judgment  became  necessary. 


President  Grant  had  scarcely  taken  a  step  in  the  duty  of  admin- 
istration before  he  realized  that  as  soon  as  the  current  session  of 
Congress  should  terminate  his  hands  would  be  completely  tied, 
respecting  the  removal  and  appointment  of  Federal  officers,  by  the 
Tenure-of-office  Act.  With  his  prompt  and  determined  mode  of  pro- 
cedure he  caused  it  to  be  known  to  Republican  senators  and  repre- 
sentatives that  so  long  as  the  statute  was  in  force  he  would  simply 
stand  still  in  the  matter  of  appointments  and  permit  the  incumbents 
to  remain  in  position,  except  where  flagrant  misconduct  should  call 
for  suspension  under  the  law.  This  position  was  startling  to  all 
who  were  desirous  of  securing  the  appointment  of  political  favor- 
ites, who  in  a  party  sense  had  earned  their  reward  and  were  wait- 
ing to  receive  it.  There  was  a  general  desire  to  remove  the  men 
whom  President  Johnson  had  forced  into  office  before  the  restraining 
Act  was  passed.  But  General  Grant  was  resolved  that  neither  he 
nor  the  members  of  his  Cabinet  would  go  through  the  disagreeable 
and  undignified  process  of  filing  reasons  for  suspending  an  officer, 
when  in  fact  no  reasons  existed  aside  from  obnoxious  political  opin- 
ion. The  Republican  members  of  both  branches  quickly  perceived 
that  tying  the  hands  of  a  hostile  President  like  Andrew  Johnson 
afforded  more  satisfaction  than  the  same  process  applied  to  a  friendly 
President  like  General  Grant. 

It  was  therefore  determined  by  the  Republicans  to  escape  from 
their  embarrassment,  even  at  the  expense  of  an  inconsistency  which 
could  but  prove  humiliating  to  them.  On  the  9th  of  March,  just 
five  days  after  Andrew  Johnson  had  left  the  Presidency,  General 
Butler  introduced  in  the  morning  hour  of  the  House,  a  bill  of  two 
VOL.  IL  29 


450  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

lines,  absolutely  repealing  the  Tenure-of-office  Act,  for  a  constructive 
violation  of  which  he  had  ten  months  before  urged  the  impeachment 
of  President  Johnson  and  his  expulsion  from  office.  The  standing 
committees  had  not  yet  been  announced ;  and  therefore  without 
reference  or  a  moment's  debate  or  consideration  of  the  measure, 
General  Butler  demanded  the  previous  question,  which  was  sustained  ; 
and  under  a  call  of  the  ayes  and  noes,  the  bill  was  passed  by  138  to  16. 
The  small  minority  was  composed  of  Republicans.  The  Democrats, 
who  had  solidly  voted  against  the  Tenure-of-office  bill  two  years 
before,  voted  now  with  entire  consistency  for  its  repeal,  and  with 
them  also,  in  solid  ranks,  voted  the  men  who,  in  the  preceding  Con- 
gress, had  clamored  most  loudly  for  Johnson's  decapitation. 

When  the  bill  reached  the  Senate,  there  was  a  disposition  on  the 
part  of  some  leading  members  of  that  body  to  pass  it  as  promptly 
as  it  had  been  passed  by  the  House.  Mr.  Morton  urged  that  it  be 
put  on  its  passage  without  referring  it ;  but  the  Senate  was  not  pre- 
pared for  such  haste,  and  on  motion  of  Mr.  Trumbull,  the  Bill  was 
sent  to  the  Judiciary  Committee.  That  Committee  reported  it  with- 
out delay  to  the  Senate,  with  an  amendment  in  the  form  of  a  substi- 
tute. The  House  bill  was  a  simple  repeal  in  the  fewest  possible 
words.  The  Judiciary  Committee  now  proposed  that  instead  of  an 
absolute  repeal,  the  Tenure-of-office  Act  "  be,  and  the  same  is,  hereby 
suspended  until  the  next  session  of  Congress." 

This  was  a  lame  and  impotent  conclusion,  and  did  not  command 
the  support  or  even  the  respect  of  the  Senate.  Mr.  Thurman,  a 
member  of  the  committee  that  reported  it,  made  haste  to  announce 
that  he  had  not  approved  it.  He  treated  the  proposition  for  suspen- 
sion as  a  practical  confession  that  the  Tenure-of-office  Act  "  is  to  be 
enforced  when  it  will  have  no  practical  effect,  and  is  not  to  be  enforced 
when  it  would  have  practical  effect."  The  chief  defenders  of  the 
proposition  to  suspend  the  Act  were  Mr.  Trumbull,  Mr.  Edmunds, 
and  Mr.  Schurz.  Mr.  Edmunds,  pressed  by  Mr.  Grimes  to  furnish  a 
good  reason  for  suspending  the  Act,  replied  that  "owing  to  the 
peculiar  circumstances  that  have  attended  the  last  administration,  it 
is  desirable  that  there  should  be  an  immediate  and  general  removal 
of  the  office-holders  of  the  country  as  a  rule  ;  and  as  an  agency  for 
that  removal,  subject  to  our  approval  when  we  meet  again  in  con- 
firmation of  their  successors,  these  bad  men  being  put  out,  we  are 
willing  to  trust  this  Executive  with  that  discretion." 

Coming  from  a  senator  of  the  United  States,  this  declaration  was 


MODIFICATION  OF  TENURE-OF-OFFICE  ACT.  451 

regarded  as  extraordinarya  The  "  bad  men  "  to  whom  Mr.  Edmunds 
referred  were  the  appointees  of  President  Johnson,  and  every  one 
of  them  had  been  confirmed  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States 
when  the  Republicans  had  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  body.  If 
these  appointees  were  "bad  men,"  why,  it  was  pertinently  and  for- 
cibly asked  by  the  aggrieved,  did  not  Mr.  Edmunds  submit  proof  of 
the  fact  to  his  Republican  associates  and  procure  their  rejection? 
He  knew,  the  accused  men  declared,  as  much  about  their  characters 
when  their  names  were  before  the  Senate,  as  he  knew  now  when  he 
sought,  behind  the  protection  of  his  privilege,  to  brand  them  with 
infamy.  To  permit  them  to  be  confirmed  in  the  silence  and  confi- 
dence of  an  executive  session,  and  then  in  open  Senate,  when  their 
places  were  wanted  for  others,  to  describe  them  as  "bad  men," 
seemed  to  them  a  procedure  not  to  be  explained  on  the  broad 
principles  of  statesmanship,  or  even  on  the  common  law  of  fair 
dealing. 

Mr.  Schurz  was  as  anxious  as  Mr.  Edmunds  to  give  the  President 
full  power  to  remove  the  office-holders.  He  declared  that  he  "  would 
be  the  last  man  to  hamper  the  President  in  the  good  work  of  cleaning 
out  the  Augean  stable,  which  he  is  now  about  to  undertake."  He 
was  sure  that  "  the  rings  must  be  broken  up,"  that  "  the  thieves  must 
be  driven  out  of  the  public  service."  He  eulogized  President  Grant 
as  especially  fit  for  the  work.  "We  have,"  said  he,  "a  President 
who  is  willing  to  do  what  we  and  the  country  desire  him  to  do."  Mr. 
Schurz  expressed  at  the  same  time  his  "heartfelt  concern  "  regarding 
a  rumor  that  the  President  was  very  sensitive  touching  the  proposi- 
tion reported  by  the  Judiciary  Committee,  and  that  "  he  will  make 
no  removals  unless  the  civil-tenure  bill  be  repealed  instead  of  being 
suspended."  Mr.  Schurz  was  sure  that  "on  all  the  great  questions 
of  policy  the  President  and  Congress  heartily  agree,"  and  he  con- 
demned "  the  attempts  made  to  sow  the  seeds  of  distrust  and  dis- 
cord." It  is  somewhat  amusing  as  well  as  instructive  to  recall  that 
in  little  more  than  two  years  from  that  time,  when  nearly  all  the 
appointees  of  President  Johnson  had  been  turned  out  of  office, 
Mr.  Schurz  began  work  again  at  "  the  Augean  stable,"  now  locating 
it  in  the  Grant  administration,  and  demanding  that  it  should  be 
cleansed,  that  "the  rings"  should  be  broken  up,  that  "the  thieves 
must  be  driven  out  of  the  public  service."  He  imputed  to  President 
Grant's  administration  even  greater  corruption  than  he  had  charged 
upon  the  administration  of  his  predecessor,  and  from  his  ever-teeming 


452  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

storehouse  lavished  abuse  with  even  a  more  generous  hand  upon  the 
one  than  he  had  upon  the  other. 

The  amendment  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  providing  for  a  sus- 
pension of  the  law  until  Congress  should  meet  again — a  period  of 
about  eight  months — was  so  objectionable  that  it  won  no  substantial 
support  from  senators.  There  was  something  so  baldly  and  shame- 
lessly partisan  in  the  proposition  to  suspend  the  Act  just  long  enough 
to  permit  President  Grant,  without  obstruction  or  encumbrance,  to 
remove  the  Democrats  whom  President  Johnson  had  appointed  to 
office,  that  the  common  instinct  of  justice,  and  even  of  public  decency, 
revolted.  The  Tenure-of-office  Act  was  either  right  or  wrong,  ex- 
pedient or  inexpedient,  Constitutional  or  unconstitutional,  and  it  was 
easy  to  see  that  men  could  honestly  differ  as  to  its  character  in  these 
respects.  But  it  was  impossible  to  comprehend  how  a  candid  legis- 
lator could  maintain  the  Constitutionality  and  expediency  of  the  Act, 
and  then  propose  to  suspend  it  for  that  specific  period  of  General 
Grant's  administration,  when,  if  needed  at  all,  it  would  be  most 
needed.  Within  the  eight  months  next  ensuing  the  President  would 
probably  make  more  removals  and  appointments  than  for  the  remain- 
der of  his  term,  and  it  was  just  for  this  period  that  Mr.  Trumbull, 
Mr.  Edmunds,  and  Mr.  Schurz  urged  that  the  law  be  made  inopera- 
tive,— inoperative  in  order  that  removals  of  Democratic  office-holders 
for  good  cause,  and  for  no  cause  except  that  they  were  Democrats, 
might  in  every  way  be  expedited. 

It  was  soon  perceived  that  if  the  question  before  the  Senate 
should  be  reduced  to  a  choice  between  suspension  of  the  Act  or  its 
total  repeal,  there  was  danger  that  the  majority  would  vote  for  repeal. 
To  avert  that  result,  Mr.  Edmunds  asked  to  withdraw  the  proposi- 
tion, and  it  was  accordingly  recommitted  to  the  Judiciary  Committee 
on  the  23d  of  March.  On  the  next  day  Mr.  Trumbull  reported  a 
substitute  for  the  existing  law,  and  the  Senate,  after  brief  discussion, 
agreed  to  it  by  ayes  37,  noes  15.  The  amendment  seemed  to  be 
ingeniously  framed  to  destroy  the  original  Act  and  yet  appear  to 
maintain  it  in  another  form.  The  senators  apparently  wished  to 
gratify  General  Grant  and  promote  their  own  purposes  by  render- 
ing the  removal  of  President  Johnson's  appointees  easy,  and  at  the 
same  time  avoid  the  inconsistency  involved  in  the  repeal  of  a  law  for 
whose  enactment  they  had  so  strenuously  contended  only  two  years 
before. 

The  first  modification  of  the  original  Act,  as  embodied  in  the 


MODIFICATION  OF  TENURE-OF-OFFICE  ACT.  453 

Senate  amendment,  was  to  relieve  the  President  altogether  from 
the  necessity  of  filing  charges  against  an  officer  whom  he  desired  to 
suspend.  In  the  second  place,  all  provisions  of  the  original  law 
authorizing  the  Senate  to  pass  specific  judgment  on  the  propriety  of 
the  suspension  and  declaring  that  if  the  Senate  did  not  approve  the 
President's  act  the  person  suspended  should  "  forthwith "  resume  his 
office,  were  now  abandoned.  The  President  was  left  at  liberty  to 
suspend  any  officer  without  assigning  a  cause,  and  to  nominate  his 
successor.  If  the  nomination  should  be  rejected,  another  might 
be  made,  and  another,  and  another,  until  the  Senate  should  confirm. 
If  the  Senate  should  stubbornly  reject  all  the  nominations  and  the 
session  of  Congress  end  without  a  confirmation,  then,  in  that  remote 
and  highly  improbable  event,  the  suspended  officer,  according  to  the 
proposed  law,  should  be  restored  to  his  place.  The  substance  of 
the  original  Act  was  gone,  but  the  Senate  sought  shelter  from  its 
record  of  inconsistency  under  the  small  shadow  of  this  distant  and 
hypothetical  restoration  of  the  suspended  officer. 

But  the  House  would  not  consent  that  even  the  small  shadow 
should  remain.  Representatives  well  knew  that  it  was  not  agreeable 
to  President  Grant  that  any  authority  should  be  retained  by  the 
Senate  whereby  an  obnoxious  officer  could  in  any  event  be  kept  in 
place  against  his  wishes,  and  they  were  in  hearty  accord  with  him. 
The  House  had  always  been  jealous  of  the  power  of  the  Senate  over 
appointments  to  office,  and  but  for  the  desire  to  punish  President 
Johnson  the  representatives  would  never  have  consented  to  the 
Tenure-of-office  Act.  They  were  now  determined,  if  possible,  to 
strip  the  Senate  of  its  great  aggrandizement  of  power.  The  feeling 
of  many  members  of  the  House  was  to  sustain  an  amendment  offered 
by  General  Logan  directing  that  "all  civil  offices,  except  those  of 
judges  of  the  United-States  courts,  filled  by  appointment  before  the 
4th  of  March,  1869,  shall  become  vacant  on  the  30th  of  June,  1869." 
This  would  have  been  a  wholesale  removal  beyond  any  scheme  at- 
tempted since  the  organization  of  the  Government ;  but  it  was  not 
deemed  wise  even  to  bring  it  to  a  test,  and  the  House  contented 
itself  with  the  rejection  of  the  Senate  amendment  by  a  decisive 
vote. 

The  subject  was  then  referred  to  a  Conference  Committee,  con- 
sisting of  Messrs.  Trumbull,  Edmunds,  and  Grimes  of  the  Senate, 
and  Messrs.  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  C.  C.  Washburn,  and  John  A. 
Bingham  of  the  House.  The  Bill  reported  by  this  committee  to  both 


454  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Houses  is  the  present  law  on  the  subject.1  Mr.  Trumbull,  in  making 
the  report,  gave  this  assurance  to  the  Senate :  "  As  the  Committee 
of  Conference  report  the  bill,  the  suspended  officer  would  go  back 
at  the  end  of  the  session  unless  somebody  else  was  confirmed  in  his 
place."  On  the  same  day  in  the  House,  in  answer  to  a  pressing 
question  from  Mr.  Hoar  of  Massachusetts,  Mr.  Bingham  expressed 
the  opinion  that  "no  authority  without  the  consent  of  the  President 
can  get  a  suspended  officer  back  into  the  same  office  again."  General 
Butler,  another  of  the  House  conferees,  said :  "  I  am  free  to  say  that 
I  think  this  amendment  upon  the  question  of  removal  and  re-instate- 
ment  of  officers  leaves  the  Tenure-of-office  Act  as  though  it  had  never 
been  passed,  so  far  as  the  power  of  the  President  over  the  Executive 
officers  is  concerned."  It  was  certainly  an  extraordinary  specta- 
cle, without  precedent  or  parallel,  that  the  report  of  the  conferees 
should  have  one  meaning  assigned  to  it  in  the  Senate,  and  a  dia- 
metrically opposite  meaning  assigned  to  it  in  the  House,  and  that 
these  antagonistic  meanings  should  be  made  on  the  same  day, 
and  put  forth  by  the  conferees  whose  names  were  attached  to 
the  report.  Such  a  legislative  proceeding  cannot  be  too  strongly 
characterized. 

But  the  popular  understanding  among  Democrats  and  Republi- 
cans alike  was  that  the  Tenure-of-office  Act  had  been  destroyed,  and 
that  Mr.  Trumbull's  technical  construction  of  the  amendment  was 
made  merely  to  cover  the  retreat  of  the  Senate.  By  the  new  enact- 
ment, the  provisions  which  had  led  to  the  dispute  between  President 
Johnson  and  Congress  were  practically  extirpated;  and  thus  a  volun- 
tary confession  was  recorded  by  both  Senate  and  House  that  they  had 
forced  an  issue  with  one  Executive  on  an  assumed  question  of  right, 
which  they  would  not  attempt  with,  his  successor.  The  members  of 
the  present  House  who  in  the  preceding  Congress  had  voted  to  im- 
peach the  President,  and  the  great  mass  of  the  senators  who  voted  to 
convict  him,  now  voted  to  blot  out  the  identical  clause  of  the  Act 
under  which  they  held  the  President  to  be  deserving  of  removal  for 
even  venturing  to  act  upon  his  own  fair  construction  of  its  meaning. 
With  all  the  plausible  defenses  that  can  be  made  for  this  contradictory 
course,  the  fact  remains  that  the  authors  of  the  law  precipitately  fled 
from  its  enforcement  the  moment  a  President  with  whom  they  were  in 
sympathy  was  installed  in  office.  They  thereby  admitted  the  partisan 

1  The  full  text  of  the  Amendment  to  the  Tenure-of-office  Ac^  will  be  found  in  Ap- 
pendix B. 


MODIFICATION  OF  TENURE-OF-OFFICE  ACT.  455 

intent  that  had  governed  the  enactment,  just  as  they  admitted  the 
partisan  intent  that  now  led  to  the  practical  repeal.  Casting  off  all 
political  disguises  and  personal  pretenses,  the  simple  truth  remains 
that  the  Tenure-of-office  Law  was  enacted  lest  President  Johnson 
should  remove  Republican  office-holders  too  rapidly ;  and  it  was  prac- 
tically repealed  lest  President  Grant  should  not  remove  Democratic 
office-holders  rapidly  enough. 

While  President  Grant  did  not  find  himself  in  the  least  degree 
embarrassed  by  the  Tenure-of-office  Act  as  amended,  he  did  not  sur- 
render his  hostility  to  its  existence  in  any  form  whatever.  In  his 
first  annual  message  (nine  months  after  the  legislation  just  narrated) 
he  earnestly  recommended  its  total  repeal.  "  It  could  not,"  said  the 
President,  "  have  been  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, when  providing  that  appointments  made  by  the  President 
should  receive  the  consent  of  the  Senate,  that  the  latter  should  have 
the  power  to  retain  in  office  persons  placed  there  by  Federal  ap- 
pointment against  the  will  of  the  President.  The  law  is  inconsistent 
with  a  faithful  and  efficient  administration  of  the  Government.  What 
faith  can  an  ^Executive  put  in  officials  forced  upon  him,  and  those,  too, 
whom  he  has  suspended  for  reason?  How  will  such  officials  be 
likely  to  serve  an  Administration  which  they  know  does  not  trust 
them?" 

The  President  was  evidently  of  opinion  that  the  doubtful  and 
contradictory  constructions  of  the  Act  as  amended  left  the  whole 
matter  (as  described  by  Mr.  Niblack  of  Indiana  when  the  Confer- 
ence report  was  under  consideration)  "  in  a  muddle ; "  with  the  in- 
evitable result  that  certain  parties  would  be  deceived  and  misled  by 
the  peculiarly  tortuous  language  which  the  Senate  insisted  upon  in- 
troducing in  the  amendment.  The  House  had  acted  throughout  in 
a  straightforward  manner,  but  the  most  lenient  critic  would  be  com- 
pelled to  say  that  the  course  of  the  Senate  was  indirect  and  evasive. 
That  body  had  evidently  sought  to  gratify  the  wishes  of  President 
Grant,  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  preserve  some  semblance  of  its  power 
over  appointments,  on  the  other.  It  was  freely  predicted  at  the  time 
that  so  long  as  the  Senate  and  the  President  were  in  political  harmony 
nothing  would  be  heard  of  the  Tenure-of-office  Act,  but  that  when 
the  political  interests  of  the  Executive  should  come  in  conflict  with 
those  of  the  Senate  there  would  be  a  renewal  of  the  trouble  which 
had  characterized  the  relations  of  President  Johnson  and  the  Senate, 
and  which  led  to  the  original  Tenure-of-office  Act  with  its  positive 


456  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

assertion  of  senatorial  power  over  the  whole  question  of  appointment 
and  removal. 


William  Pitt  Fessenden  took  part  in  the  first  session  of  Congress 
under  the  Presidency  of  General  Grant.  It  was  his  last  public  ser- 
vice. On  the  eighth  day  of  the  following  September  (1869)  he  died 
at  his  residence  in  Portland,  Maine,  in  the  sixty-third  year  of  his 
age.  He  was  one  of  the  many  victims  of  that  strange  malady  which, 
breaking  out  with  virulence  at  the  National  Hotel  in  Washington  on 
the  eve  of  Mr.  Buchanan's  inauguration  (1856—57),  destroyed  many 
lives.  Its  deadly  poison  undermined  the  constitutions  of  some  who 
apparently  recovered  health.  Of  these  Mr.  Fessenden  was  one. 
He  regained  the  vigor  that  carried  him  through  those  critical  years 
of  senatorial  work  on  which  his  fame  chiefly  rests ;  yet  he  always 
felt  that  he  had  been  irreparably  injured  by  the  insidious  attack. 
The  irritability  and  impatience  which  he  occasionally  displayed  in 
public  and  in  private  came  undoubtedly  from  sufferings  which  he 
bore  with  heroic  endurance  through  the  years  when  his  public  bur- 
dens were  heaviest. 

—  His  death  was  announced  by  his  successor,  Lot  M.  Merrill,  who 
delivered  an  appreciative  eulogy  upon  his  character  and  public  ser- 
vice.    Mr.  Sumner  bore  testimony  to  the  greatness  of  his  career  in 
the  Senate.     "  All  that  our  best  generals  were  in  arms,  Mr.  Fessenden 
was  in  the  financial  field,"  said  the  Massachusetts  senator.     Describ- 
ing Mr.  Fessenden's  "  extraordinary  powers  in  debate  —  powers  which 
he  commanded  so  readily,"  Mr.  Sumner  said,  "His  words  warmed 
as  the  Olympic  wheel  caught  fire  in  the  swiftness  of  the  race.     If 
on  these  occasions  there  were  sparkles  which  fell  where  they  should 
not  have  fallen,  they  cannot  be  remembered  now."     This  reference 
was  well  understood.     Mr.  Fessenden  and  Mr.  Sumner  were  never 
cordial.     Members  of  the  same  party,  supporters  of  the  same  general 
measures,  with  perfect  appreciation  and  with  profound  respect  each 
for  the  other,  it  seemed  as  impossible  to  unite  them  cordially,  as  in 
earlier  days  it  was  to  unite  Adams  and  Hamilton  in  the  ranks  of  the 
Federalists. 

—  Mr.  Fessenden  had  maintained  a  brilliant  reputation  for  a  long 
period.     When  Mr.  Webster,  at  the  height  of  his  senatorial  fame, 
made  his  celebrated  tour  through  the  Middle  and  Western  States  in 
1837,  he  selected  Mr.  Fessenden,  a  young  man  of  thirty,  as  his  trav- 


DEATH  OF  WILLIAM  PITT  FESSENDEN.  457 

eling  companion,  —  selected  him  for  his  brilliancy,  when  he  had 
choice  of  the  brilliancy  of  all  New  England.  Mr.  Garrett  Davis,  a 
senator  from  Kentucky,  in  his  eulogy  of  Mr.  Fessenden,  referred 
to  Mr.  Webster's  visit  to  that  State,  and  described  the  warm  greeting 
which  Mr.  Fessenden  received,  the  deep  impression  made  upon  him 
by  Mr.  Clay's  hospitality  at  Ashland,  and  the  impression  which  the 
young  man  made  upon  Mr.  Clay,  with  whom  he  thenceforward 
became  a  marked  favorite.  Mr.  Davis  and  Mr.  Fessenden  met  not 
long  after  as  members  of  the  House  in  the  Twenty-seventh  Congress 
(under  Harrison  and  Tyler).  "Mr.  Fessenden  at  that  time,"  said 
Mr.  Davis,  "  was  not  only  a  young  man  of  eminent  ability  and  attain- 
ments, but  he  was  warm-hearted,  frank,  honorable,  eminently  consci- 
entious. His  health  was  then  good,  and  he  was  always  bright  and 
genial:  sometimes  he  showed  the  lambent  play  of  passion  and  of 
fire." 

—  His  eulogists  in  both  branches  of  Congress  were  many.  Mr. 
Hamlin,  long  his  colleague,  had  been  a  student  in  his  law  office,  and 
placed  him  in  the  front  rank  of  American  senators.  Mr.  Trumbull 
presented  him  as  he  was  in  1855,  when  they  first  met  in  a  Senate  of 
sixty-two  members,  of  whom  only  fifteen  were  Republicans.  Mr. 
Williams  of  Oregon  described  him  as  "towering  in  mind  among 
those  around  him,  like  Saul  in  form  among  his  countrymen."  In  the 
House,  Mr.  Lynch,  from  his  own  city,  gave  the  home  estimate  of  Mr. 
Fessenden's  character.  Mr.  Peters  eulogized  him  for  his  eminent 
professional  rank ;  and  Mr.  Hale  described  him  as  a  man  "who  never 
kept  himself  before  the  people  by  eccentric  forces,  and  went  in  quest 
of  no  popularity  that  had  to  be  bought  by  time-serving."  Words  of 
tenderness  and  affection  were  spoken  of  him  by  men  whose  tempera- 
ment was  as  reserved  and  undemonstrative  as  his  own.  —  "A  truer, 
kinder  heart,"  said  Henry  B.  Anthony,  "beats  in  no  living  breast 
than  that  which  now  lies  cold  and  pulseless  in  the  dead  form  of 
William  Pitt  Fessenden." 


CHAPTER    XIX. 

EVENTS  OF  INTEREST. — IN  DIPLOMACY  AND  RECONSTRUCTION.  —  THE  DOMINICAN  RE- 
PUBLIC. —  ANNEXATION  TREATY.  —  DEFEATED  BY  SENATE.  —  PRESIDENT  GRANT 
RENEWS  THE  EFFORT.  —  COMMISSION  SENT  TO  SAN  DOMINGO. — THEIR  REPORT. — 
OPPOSITION  OF  MR.  SUMNER.  —  THE  PRESIDENT  AND  MR.  SUMNER.  —  RECONSTRUC- 
TION MEASURES  COMPLETED.  —  VIRGINIA,  MISSISSIPPI  AND  TEXAS.  —  RE-ADMITTED 
TO  REPRESENTATION.  —  PECULIAR  CASE  OF  GEORGIA.  — HER  RECONSTRUCTION  POST- 
PONED. —  LAST  STATE  RE-ADMITTED  TO  REPRESENTATION.  —  FIFTEENTH  AMENDMENT. 

—  ADOPTED.  —  PROCLAIMED  MARCH  30,  1870.  —  PRESIDENT'S  MESSAGE  —  COURSE  OF 
THE  SOUTHERN   STATES.  —  HOSTILITY  TO  RECONSTRUCTED  GOVERNMENTS.  —  DETER- 
MINATION TO  BREAK  THEM  DOWN. — MILITARY  INTERPOSITION  OF  THE  GOVERNMENT. 

—  KU-KLUX-KLANS.  —  VIOLENCE  IN  THE  SOUTH.  —  LEGISLATION  TO  PREVP;NT  IT. — 
DIFFICULT  TASK.  —  MOTIVE  INSPIRING  THE  SOUTH.  —  CARPET-BAG  IMMIGRATION. — 
COTTON-REARING  ORIGINAL  MOTIVE.  —  POLITICAL  CONSEQUENCE.  —  DISABILITIES  IN 
THE  SOUTH.  —  CAUSE  THEREOF.  —RESPONSIBILITY  OF  SOUTHERN  STATES.  —  ORIGINAL 

MISTAKE  OF  THE  SOUTH.  —  THE  AlMS  OF  THE  NORTH. 

THE  chief  interest  in  the  events  of  General  Grant's  first  term 
was  divided  between  questions  of  a  diplomatic  character  and 
those  arising  from  the  condition  of  the  South  after  Reconstruction 
had  been  completed.  The  first  issue  that  enlisted  popular  atten- 
tion was  in  regard  to  the  annexation  of  the  Dominican  Republic. 
It  was  the  earliest  decisive  step  of  General  Grant's  policy  that 
attracted  the  observation  of  the  people.  The  negotiation  was 
opened  on  the  request  of  the  authorities  of  San  Domingo,  and  it 
began  about  three  months  after  the  President's  inauguration.  In 
July  General  O.  E.  Babcock,  one  of  the  President's  private  secre- 
taries, was  dispatched  to  San  Domingo  upon  an  errand  of  which  the 
public  knew  nothing.  He  bore  a  letter  of  instructions  from  Sec- 
retary Fish,  apparently  limiting  the  mission  to  an  inquiry  into  the 
condition,  prospects,  and  resources  of  the  Island.  From  its  tenor 
the  negotiation  of  a  treaty  was  not  at  that  time  anticipated  by  the 
State  Department.  General  Babcock's  mission  finally  resulted  how- 
ever in  a  treaty  for  the  annexation  of  the  Republic  of  Dominica, 
and  a  convention  for  the  lease  of  the  bay  and  peninsula  of  Samana, 
—  separately  negotiated  and  both  concluded  on  the  29th  of  Novem- 

458 


PROPOSED  PURCHASE  OF  SAN  DOMINGO.      459 

ber,  1869.  The  territory  included  in  the  Dominican  Republic  is 
the  eastern  portion  of  the  Island  of  San  Domingo,  originally  known 
as  Hispaniola.  It  embraces  perhaps  two-thirds  of  the  whole.  The 
western  part  forms  the  Republic  of  Hayti.  With  the  exception  of 
Cuba,  the  island  is  the  largest  of  the  West  India  group.  The  total 
area  is  about  28,000  square  miles,  —  equivalent  to  Massachusetts, 
New  Hampshire,  Vermont  and  Rhode  Island  combined. 

President  Grant  placed  extravagant  estimates  upon  the  value  of 
the  territory  which  he  supposed  was  now  acquired  under  the  Babcock 
treaties.  In  his  message  to  Congress  he  expressed  the  belief  that  the 
island  would  yield  to  the  United  States  all  the  sugar,  coffee,  tobacco, 
and  other  tropical  products  which  the  country  would  consume. 
"  The  production  of  our  supply  of  these  articles,"  said  the  President, 
"will  cut  off  more  than  $100,000,000  of  our  annual  imports,  besides 
largely  increasing  our  exports."  "  With  such  a  picture,"  he  added, 
"it  is  easy  to  see  how  our  large  debt  abroad  is  ultimately  to  be 
extinguished.  With  a  balance  of  trade  against  us  (including  interest 
on  bonds  held  by  foreigners  and  money  spent  by  our  citizens  travel- 
ing in  foreign  lands)  equal  to  the  entire  yield  of  precious  metals  in 
this  country,  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  this  result  is  to  be  otherwise 
accomplished."  He  maintained  that  "  the  acquisition  of  San  Domingo 
will  furnish  our  citizens  with  the  necessaries  of  every-day  life  at 
cheaper  rates  than  ever  before  ;  and  it  is  in  fine  a  rapid  stride  towards 
that  greatness  which  the  intelligence,  industry,  and  enterprise  of  our 
citizens  entitle  this  country  to  assume  among  nations." 

Earnest  as  General  Grant  was  in  his  argument,  deeply  as  his  per- 
sonal feelings  were  enlisted  in  the  issue,  thoroughly  as  his  Adminis- 
tration was  committed  to  the  treaty,  the  Senate  on  the  30th  of  June 
(1870),  to  his  utter  surprise,  rejected  it.  The  vote  was  a  tie,  28  to 
28,  as  was  afterwards  disclosed  in  debate  in  open  Senate.  Though 
the  votes  of  two-thirds  of  the  senators  were  required  to  confirm  the 
treaty  President  Grant  was  not  discouraged.  He  returned  to  the 
subject  six  months  later,  in  his  annual  message  of  December,  and 
discussed  the  question  afresh  with  apparently  renewed  confidence  in 
the  expediency  of  the  acquisition.  "  I  now  firmly  believe,"  he  said, 
"  that  the  moment  it  is  known  that  the  United  States  have  entirely 
abandoned  the  project  of  accepting  as  part  of  its  own  territory  the 
Island  of  San  Domingo,  a  free  port  will  be  negotiated  for  by  Euro- 
pean nations  in  the  Bay  of  Samana,  and  a  large  commercial  city 
will  spring  up,  to  which  we  will  be  tributary  without  receiving  cor- 


460  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

responding  benefits.  Then  will  be  seen  the  folly  of  our  rejecting  so 
great  a  prize.  ...  So  convinced  am  I  of  the  advantages  to  flow 
from  the  acquisition  of  San  Domingo,  and  of  the  great  disadvan- 
tages, I  might  also  say  calamities,  to  flow  from  its  non-acquisition, 
that  I  believe  the  subject  has  only  to  be  investigated  to  be  ap- 
proved." He  recommended  that  "by  joint  resolution  of  the  two 
Houses  of  Congress,  the  Executive  be  authorized  to  appoint  a  com- 
mission to  negotiate  a  treaty  with  the  authorities  of  San  Domingo 
for  the  acquisition  of  that  island,  and  that  an  appropriation  be  made 
to  defray  the  expenses  of  such  commission." 

The  subject  at  once  led  to  discussion  in  both  branches  of  Con- 
gress, in  which  the  hostility  to  the  scheme  on  the  part  of  some  lead- 
ing men  assumed  the  tone  of  personal  exasperation  towards  General 
Grant.  So  intense  was  the  opposition  that  the  President's  friends  in 
the  Senate  did  not  deem  it  prudent  even  to  discuss  the  measure 
which  he  recommended.  As  the  best  that  could  be  done,  Mr.  Morton 
of  Indiana  introduced  a  resolution  empowering  the  President  to  ap- 
point three  Commissioners  to  proceed  to  San  Domingo  and  make 
certain  inquiries  into  the  political  condition  of  the  island,  and  also 
into  its  agricultural  and  commercial  value.  The  Commissioners  were 
to  have  no  compensation.  Their  expenses  were  to  be  paid,  and  a 
secretary  was  to  be  provided.  Even  in  this  mild  shape  the  resolu- 
tion was  hotly  opposed.  It  was  finally  adopted  by  the  Senate,  but 
when  it  reached  the  House  that  body  refused  to  concur  except  with  a 
proviso  that  "  nothing  in  this  resolution  shall  be  held,  understood, 
or  construed  as  committing  Congress  to  the  policy  of  annexing  San 
Domingo."  The  Senate  concurred  in  the  condition  thus  attached, 
and  the  President  approved  it.  It  was  plain  that  the  President  could 
not  carry  the  annexation  scheme ;  but  he  courted  a  searching  inves- 
tigation in  order  that  the  course  he  had  pursued  might  be  vindicated 
by  the  well-considered  judgment  of  impartial  men. 

The  President's  selections  for  the  Commission  were  wisely  made. 
Benjamin  F.  Wade  of  Ohio,  Andrew  D.  White  of  New  York,  and 
Samuel  G.  Howe  of  Massachusetts,  were  men  entitled  to  the  highest 
respect,  and  their  conclusions,  based  upon  intelligent  investigation, 
would  exert  large  influence  upon  public  opinion.  The  Commis- 
sion at  once  visited  the  island  (carried  thither  on  a  United-States 
vessel  of  war),  made  a  thorough  examination  of  all  its  resources, 
held  conferences  with  its  leading  citizens,  and  concluded  that  the 
policy  recommended  by  General  Grant  should  be  sustained.  The 


PROPOSED  PURCHASE  OF  SAN  DOMINGO.  461 

Commissioners  corroborated  General  Grant's  assertion  that  the  island 
could  supply  the  United  States  with  the  sugar,  coffee,  and  other 
tropical  products  needed  for  our  consumption;  and  they  upheld 
the  President  in  his  belief  that  the  possession  of  the  island  by  the 
United  States  would  by  the  laws  of  trade  make  slave  labor  in  the 
neighboring  islands  unprofitable,  and  render  the  whole  slave  and 
caste  systems  odious. 

In  communicating  the  report,  the  President  made  some  remarks 
which  had  a  personal  bearing.  "  The  mere  rejection  by  the  Senate 
of  a  treaty  negotiated  by  the  President,"  said  he,  "  only  indicates 
a  difference  of  opinion  among  different  departments  of  the  Govern- 
ment, without  touching  the  character  or  wounding  the  pride  of 
either.  But  when  such  rejection  takes  place  simultaneously  with 
charges,  openly  made,  of  corruption  on  the  part  of  the  President, 
or  of  those  employed  by  him,  the  case  is  different.  Indeed,  in 
such  case  the  honor  of  the  nation  demands  investigation.  This 
has  been  accomplished  by  the  report  of  the  Commissioners,  here- 
with transmitted,  and  which  fully  vindicates  the  purity  of  motives 
and  action  of  those  who  represented  the  United  States  in  the 
negotiation.  And  now  my  task  is  finished,  and  with  it  ends  all 
personal  solicitude  upon  the  subject.  My  duty  being  done,  yours 
begins,  and  I  gladly  hand  over  the  whole  matter  to  the  judgment 
of  the  American  people  and  of  their  representatives  in  Congress 
assembled." 

The  pointed  remarks  of  the  President  were  understood  as  refer- 
ring to  the  speech  made  by  Mr.  Sumner  when  the  resolution  for  the 
appointment  of  the  Commission  was  pending  before  the  Senate.  Mr. 
Sumner  had  previously  conceived  a  strong  dislike  to  General  Grant 
on  account  of  some  personal  grievance,  either  fancied  or  real ;  and 
he  debated  the  resolution  in  a  spirit  not  at  all  justified  by  the  sub- 
ject itself.  He  spoke  of  it  as  "  a  measure  of  violence  "  and  a  "  dance 
of  blood."  "In  other  days,"  said  he,  "to  carry  a  project,  a  President 
has  tried  to  change  a  committee  :  it  was  James  Buchanan.  Now  we 
have  been  called  this  session  to  witness  a  similar  endeavor  by  our 
President.  He  was  not  satisfied  with  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations,  and  wished  it  changed.  He  asked  first  for  the  removal  of 
the  chairman  [Mr.  Sumner  himself].  Somebody  told  him  that  this 
would  not  be  convenient.  He  then  asked  for  the  removal  of  the 
senator  from  Missouri  [Mr.  Schurz],  and  he  was  told  that  this  could 
not  be  done  without  affecting  the  German  vote." 


462  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Mr.  Sumner  continued :  "  The  negotiation  for  annexation  began 
with  a  political  jockey  named  Buenaventura  Baez ;  and  he  had  about 
him  two  other  political  jockeys,  Casneau  and  Fabens.  These  three 
together,  a  precious  copartnership,  seduced  into  their  firm  a  young 
officer  of  ours,  who  entitles  himself  aide-de-camp  to  the  President  of 
the  United  States.  Together  they  got  up  what  was  entitled  a  pro- 
tocol, in  which  the  young  officer,  entitling  himself  aide-de-camp  to 
the  President,  proceeded  to  make  certain  promises  for  the  President. 
I  desire  to  say  that  there  is  not  one  word  showing  that  at  the  time 
this  aide-de-camp,  as  he  called  himself,  had  any  title  or  instruction  to 
take  this  step.  If  he  had,  that  title  and  that  instruction  have  been 
withheld.  No  inquiry  has  been  able  to  penetrate  it.  ...  I  ask 
you,"  said  he,  addressing  the  Vice-President,  "  do  you  know  any  such 
officer  in  our  government  as  '  aide-de-camp  to  his  Excellency  the 
President  of  the  United  States'?  Does  his  name  appear  in  the  Con- 
stitution, in  any  statute,  in  the  history  of  this  country  anywhere? 
If  it  does,  then  your  information  is  much  beyond  mine.  .  .  .  How- 
ever, he  assumed  the  title ;  and  it  doubtless  produced  a  great  effect 
with  Baez,  Casneau,  and  Fabens,  the  three  confederates.  They  were 
doubtless  pleased  with  the  distinction.  It  helped  on  the  plan  they 
we-re  engineering.  The  young  aide-de-camp  pledged  the  President  as 
follows :  4  His  Excellency,  General  Grant,  President  of  the  United 
States,  promises  privately  to  use  all  his  influence,  in  order  that  the 
idea  of  annexing  the  Dominican  Republic  to  the  United  States  may 
acquire  such  a  degree  of  popularity  among  members  of  Congress  as 
will  be  necessary  for  its  accomplishment.'  Shall  I  read  the  rest  of 
the  document  ?  It  is  somewhat  of  the  same  tenor.  There  are  ques- 
tions of  money  in  it,  cash  down,  all  of  which  must  have  been  par- 
ticularly agreeable  to  the  three  confederates."  At  one  stage  of  his 
bitter  arraignment  of  the  Administration  Mr.  Sumner  besought  the 
Vice-President  (Mr.  Colfax)  "as  a  friend  of  General  Grant  to  coun- 
sel him  not  to  follow  the  examples  of  Franklin  Pierce,  of  James 
Buchanan,  and  of  Andrew  Johnson." 

After  the  delivery  of  this  speech  General  Grant  and  Senator  Sum- 
ner held  no  personal  intercourse.  Public  opinion  did  not  justify  the 
course  of  Mr.  Sumner.  It  was  regarded  as  an  exhibition  of  temper 
unworthy  his  high  position,  and  his  speech  was  distinguished  by  a 
tone  not  proper  to  be  employed  towards  the  President  of  the  United 
States.  But  he  had  not  imputed,  as  General  Grant  assumed,  any 
personal  corruption  to  him.  On  the  contrary  he  considered  the 


PROPOSED  PURCHASE  OF  SAN  DOMINGO.  463 

questionable  course  of  General  Babcock  to  be  without  instruction. 
General  Grant's  reference  in  his  message  to  Mr.  Sumner's  angry 
arraignment,  a  part  of  which  is  already  quoted,  closed  with  a  men- 
tion of  "acrimonious  debates  in  Congress"  and  "unjust  aspersions 
elsewhere."  "No  man,"  said  he,  "can  hope  to  perform  duties  so 
delicate  and  responsible  as  appertain  to  the  Presidential  office  with- 
out sometimes  incurring  the  hostility  of  those  who  deem  their-  opixn- 
ions  and  wishes  treated  with  insufficient  consideration."  This  was 
a  direct  personal  reference  to  Mr.  Sumner,  perfectly  understood  at 
the  time.  General  Grant  continued :  "  He  who  undertakes  to  con- 
duct the  affairs  of  a  great  government  as  a  faithful  public  servant,  if 
sustained  by  the  approval  of  his  own  conscience,  may  rely  witfy  con- 
fidence upon  the  candor  and  intelligence  of  a  free  people,  whose 
best  interests  he  has  striven  to  subserve,  and  can  bear  with  patience 
the  censure  of  disappointed  men." 

No  further  attempt  was  made  by  the  President  to  urge  the  acqui- 
sition of  San  Domingo  upon  Congress.  It  was  evident  that  neither 
the  Senate  nor  House  could  be  induced  to  approve  the  scheme,  and 
the  Administration  was  necessarily  compelled  to  abandon  it.  But 
defeat  did  not  change  General  Grant's  view  of  the  question.  He 
held  to  his  belief  in  its  expediency  and  value  with  characteristic 
tenacity.  In  his  last  annual  message  to  Congress  (December,  1876), 
nearly  six  years  after  the  controversy  had  closed,  he  recurred  to  the 
subject,  to  record  once  more  his  approval  of  it.  "  If  my  views,"  said 
he,  "  had  been  concurred  in,  the  country  would  be  in  a  more  pros- 
perous condition  to-day,  both  politically  and  financially."  He  then 
proceeded  to  re-state  the  question,  and  to  sustain  it  with  the  argu- 
ments which  he  had  presented  to  Congress  in  1870  and  1871.  His 
last  words  were  :  "  I  do  not  present  these  views  now  as  a  recommen- 
dation for  a  renewal  of  the  subject  of  annexation,  but  I  do  refer  to 
it  to  vindicate  my  previous  action  in  regard  to  it." 


Though  the  Reconstruction  measures  were  all  perfected  before 
General  Grant's  election  to  the  Presidency,  the  necessary  Acts  pre- 
scribed by  them  had  not  been  completed  by  all  the  States.  The 
three  which  had  not  been  admitted  to  representation,  and  had  not 
taken  part  in  the  National  election, — Virginia,  Mississippi,  and 
Texas, —had  by  the  spring  of  1870  fully  complied  with  all  the 


464  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

requirements,  and  were  therefore  admitted  to  all  the  privileges  which 
had  been  accorded  to  the  other  States  of  the  South.  Virginia  was 
admitted  to  representation  in  Congress  by  the  Act  of  Jan.  26,  Mis- 
sissippi by  the  Act  of  Feb.  23,  and  Texas  by  the  Act  of  March  30 
(1870).  It  was  their  own  fault,  and  not  the  design  of  the  Govern- 
ment, that  prevented  these  States  from  being  included  in  the  same 
bill  with  their  associates  in  rebellion. 

The  reconstruction  of  Georgia,  supposed  to  have  been  completed 
the  preceding  year  by  the  admission  of  her  representatives  to  the 
House,  was  taken  up  for  review  at  the  opening  of  the  Forty-first 
Congress.  Neither  her  senators  nor  representatives  were  permitted 
to  be  sworn,  but  their  credentials  were  referred  in  each  House  to  the 
Committee  on  Elections.  In  the  judgment  of  the  majority  the  con- 
duct of  Georgia  justified  this  severe  course.  Her  Legislature,  after 
complying  with  every  condition  of  reconstruction,  took  an  extraordi- 
nary and  unaccountable  step.  That  body  decided  that  colored  men 
were  not  entitled  to  serve  as  legislators  or  to  hold  any  office  in 
Georgia.  They  were  therefore  expelled  from  their  seats,  while  white 
men,  not  eligible  to  hold  office  under  the  Fourteenth  Amendment, 
were  retained.  The  Fifteenth  Amendment  was  then  rejected  by  the 
Legislature,  composed  exclusively  of  white  men.  These  facts  were 
ascertained  before  the  senators  from  Georgia  were  admitted  to  their 
seats,  and  before  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  had  yet  been  ratified  by 
the  requisite  number  of  States. 

Congress  took  prompt  cognizance  of  this  condition  of  affairs, 
and  passed  another  bill  on  the  16th  of  December  (1869),  declaring 
"  that  the  exclusion  of  persons  from  the  Legislature  upon  the  ground 
of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude,  would  be  illegal  and 
revolutionary,  and  is  hereby  prohibited."  In  order  to  make  the  pro- 
hibition effective,  Georgia  was  required,  before  her  senators  and  rep- 
resentatives could  be  seated,  to  ratify  the  Fifteenth  Amendment 
to  the  Constitution.  The  Legislature  of  Georgia  was  accordingly 
re-assembled,  the  colored  members  resumed  their  seats,  and  the  Fif- 
teenth Amendment  was  duly  ratified  on  the  2d  of  February  (1870). 
The  conditions  were  considered  by  some  prominent  Republicans  to 
be  an  assumption  of  power  on  the  part  of  Congress,  and  were  there- 
fore opposed  actively  by  Mr.  Carpenter  in  the  Senate  and  Mr.  Bing- 
ham  in  the  House  ;  but  the  great  body  of  the  party  insisted  upon 
them,  and  the  movement  had  the  full  sympathy  of  the  President. 
The  course  pursued  by  Georgia  made  her  the  last  State  to  be  recon- 


ADOPTION  OF  FIFTEENTH  AMENDMENT.  465 

structed.  The  final  Act  for  her  re-admission  to  the  right  of  repre- 
sentation in  Congress  was  passed  on  the  15th  of  July,  1870. 

The  adoption  of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  had  become  in  the 
minds  of  thinking  men  an  essential  link  in  the  chain  of  reconstruc- 
tion. The  action  of  Georgia  in  expelling  colored  men  from  the 
Legislature  after  her  reconstruction  was  supposed  to  be  complete, 
roused  the  country  to  the  knowledge  of  what  was  intended  by  the 
leading  men  of  the  South ;  and  the  positive  action  of  Congress 
roused  the  leading  men  of  the  South  to  a  knowledge  of  what  was 
intended  by  Congress.  On  the  30th  of  March  Secretary  Fish  issued 
a  proclamation  making  known  to  the  people  of  the  United  States 
that  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  had  been  ratified  by  the  Legislatures 
of  thirty  States,  and  was  therefore  a  part  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.  New  York,  which  had  given  her  ratification 
when  the  Legislature  was  Republican,  attempted  at  the  succeeding 
session,  with  the  Democratic  party  in  power,  to  withdraw  its  recorded 
assent;  but  as  in  the  case  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  action 
on  the  subject  was  held  to  be  completed  when  the  State  officially  an- 
nounced it,  and  New  York  was  numbered  among  the  States  which 
had  ratified  the  Amendment.  The  only  States  opposing  it  were  New 
Jersey,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  California,  and 
Oregon.  At  the  time  the  Amendment  was  submitted,  the  Legisla- 
tures of  these  States  were  under  the  absolute  control  of  the  Demo- 
cratic party.  The  hostility  of  that  party  to  the  Fifteenth  Amend- 
ment was  as  rancorous  as  it  had  been  to  the  Fourteenth.  Not  a 
single  Democrat  voted  to  ratify  it  in  either  branch  of  Congress,  and 
the  Democratic  opposition  in  the  State  Legislatures  throughout  the 
Union  was  almost  equally  pronounced.1 

This  radical  change  in  the  Organic  Law  of  the  Republic  was 
regarded  by  President  Grant  as  so  important,  that  he  notified  Con- 
gress of  its  official  promulgation,  by  special  message.  He  dwelt 
upon  the  character  of  the  Amendment,  and  addressed  words  of 
counsel  to  both  races.  "I  call  the  attention  of  the  newly  enfran- 
chised race,"  said  he,  "  to  the  importance  of  striving  in  every  hon- 
orable manner  to  make  themselves  worthy  of  their  new  privilege. 

1  The  New  Jersey  Legislature  of  1871  reversed  the  action  of  the  previous  year,  and 
ratified  the  Amendment  after  it  had  been  proclaimed  by  the  Secretary  of  State  as  adopted. 
Ohio  at  first  rejected  the  Amendment,  but  reversed  her  action  in  time  to  have  her  vote 
recorded  among  the  States  ratifying  the  Amendment.  New  York  ratified  the  Amendment 
in  1869;  the  next  year,  under  a  Democratic  majority,  the  Legislature  attempted  to  with- 
draw the  ratification ;  and  in  the  year  succeeding  the  Republicans  re-affirmed  it. 
VOL.  II.  30 


466  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

To  the  race  more  favored  heretofore  by  our  laws,  I  would  say, 
Withhold  no  legal  privilege  of  advancement  to  the  new  citizens." 
He  called  upon  Congress  to  promote  popular  education  throughout 
the  country  by  all  the  means  within  their  Constitutional  power,  in 
order  that  universal  suffrage  might  be  based  on  universal  intelligence. 

In  the  same  spirit  that  led  to  the  message  of  the  President,  Con- 
gress proceeded  to  enact  laws  protecting  the  rights  that  were  guaran- 
teed under  the  new  Constitutional  Amendment.  On  the  31st  of 
May  (1870),  two  months  after  the  Amendment  was  promulgated, 
an  Act  was  passed  "  to  enforce  the  right  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States  to  vote  in  the  several  States  in  this  Union."  Eight  months 
later,  on  the  28th  of  February,  1871,  an  additional  Act  .on  the  same 
subject  was  passed.  These  statutes  were  designed  to  protect,  so 
far  as  human  law  can  protect,  the  right  of  every  man  in  the  United 
States  to  vote,  and  they  were  enacted  with  special  care  to  arrest  the 
dangers  already  developing  in  the  South  against  free  suffrage,  and  to 
prevent  the  dangers  more  ominously  though  more  remotely  menacing 
it.  The  Republican  party  was  unanimous  in  support  of  these  meas- 
ures, while  the  Democratic  party  had  nearly  consolidated  their  votes 
against  them.  It  was  not  often  that  the  line  of  party  was  so  strictly 
drawn  as  at  this  period  and  on  issues  of  this  character. 

As  the  Reconstruction  of  each  State  was  completed,  the  Military 
Government  that  was  instituted  in  1867  was  withdrawn.  The 
Southern  people  —  at  first  proclaiming  a  sense  of  outrage  at  the  pres- 
ence of  soldiers  in  time  of  peace  —  soon  became  content  with  the 
orderly,  just,  and  fair  administration  which  the  commanding  generals 
enforced.  Many  of  the  wisest  men  of  the  South  would  have  been 
glad  to  continue  the  same  form  of  government,  until  the  passions 
engendered  by  the  war  had  somewhat  cooled  and  the  new  relations 
of  the  two  races  had  become  so  amicably  adjusted  as  to  remove  all 
danger  of  conflict  between  them.  But  the  course  of  events  did  not 
suggest,  and  perhaps  would  not  have  permitted,  an  arrangement  of 
this  character  ;  and  hence  the  States  were  left,  under  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  Union,  to  shape  their  own  destiny. 

The  presumption  was  that  these  States  would  be  obedient  to  the 
Constitution  and  laws.  But  for  this  presumption,  legislation  would 
be  but  idle  play,  and  a  government  of  laws  would  degenerate  at 
once  into  a  government  of  force.  In  enacting  the  Reconstruction 
Laws  Congress  proceeded  upon  the  basis  of  faith  in  Republican 
government,  as  defined  so  tersely  by  Mr.  Lincoln  —  of  the  people, 


SOUTHERN  OPPOSITION  TO  AMENDMENTS.  467 

by  the  people,  for  the  people.  It  had  the  additional  assurance  of  the 
acceptance  of  the  terms  of  Reconstruction  by  the  lawful  organiza- 
tions of  the  Southern  States.  And  if  the  presumption  of  obedience 
with  respect  to  statute  law  be  general,  much  stronger  should  it  be 
with  respect  to  organic  law,  upon  which  the  entire  structure  of  free 
government  is  founded.  It  was  therefore  logical  for  the  National 
administration  to  assume,  as  Reconstruction  was  completed,  that 
the  harmonious  working  of  the  Federal  government  through  all 
its  members  was  formally  re-established.  It  was  a  cause  of  great 
rejoicing  that,  after  four  years  of  bloody  war  and  four  years  of 
laborious  and  careful  Reconstruction,  every  State  in  the  Union 
had  regained  its  autonomy  in  the  first  year  of  General  Grant's 
Presidency;  and  that  the  Government  and  the  people  of  the  Union 
were  entitled  to  look  forward  to  peaceful  administration,  to  friendly 
intercourse,  to  the  cultivation  of  kindly  feeling,  to  the  promotion  of 
agriculture,  manufactures,  and  commerce.  The  lenity  with  which 
the  triumphant  Union  had  treated  the  crime  of  rebellion — sacrificing 
no  man's  life,  stripping  no  man  of  his  property,  depriving  no  man 
of  his  personal  liberty  —  gave  the  Government  the  right  to  expect 
order  and  the  reign  of  law  in  the  South. 

But  it  was  soon  disclosed  that  on  the  part  of  the  large  mass 
of  those  who  had  participated  in  the  rebellion,  properly  speaking, 
indeed,  on  the  part  of  the  vast  majority  of  the  white  men  of  the 
South,  there  was  really  no  intention  to  acquiesce  in  the  legislation 
of  Congress,  no  purpose  to  abide  by  the  Constitutional  Amendments 
in  good  faith.  A  majority  of  the  white  people  of  the  South  accepted 
rather  the  creed  of  General  Blair,  whom  they  had  supported  for  Vice- 
President,  and  regarded  themselves  justified  in  opposing,  repudiating, 
and  if  possible  destroying,  the  governments  that  had  grown  up  under 
the  protection  of  the  Reconstruction  Laws.  The  re-admission  of  their 
States  to  representation  was  taken  by  them  only  as  the  beginning  of 
the  era  in  which  they  would  more  freely  wage  conflict  against  that 
which  was  distasteful  and,  as  they  claimed,  oppressive.  It  is  not  to 
be  denied  that  they  had  the  inherent  right,  inside  of  Constitutional 
limitations,  to  repeal  the  laws  of  their  States,  and  even  to  change 
the  Constitution  itself,  if  they  should  do  it  by  prescribed  methods 
and  by  honest  majorities,  and  should  not,  in  the  process,  disturb  the 
fundamental  conditions  upon  which  the  General  Government  had 
assented  to  their  re-admission  to  the  right  of  representation  in  Con- 
gress. It  was  not,  however,  the  purpose  of  the  Southern  Democrats 


468  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

to  be  fettered  and  embarrassed  by  any  such,  exemplary  restraints.  By 
means  lawful  or  unlawful  they  determined  to  uproot  and  overthrow 
the  State  governments  that  had  been  established  in  a  spirit  of  loyalty 
to  the  Union.  They  were  resolved  that  the  negro  should  not  be  a 
political  power  in  their  local  governments ;  that  he  should  not,  so  far 
as  their  interposition  could  prevent  it,  exert  any  influence  over  elec- 
tions, either  State  or  national ;  and  that  his  suffrage,  if  permitted  to 
exist  at  all,  should  be  only  in  the  innocent  form  of  a  minority. 

Seeing  this  determination,  the  National  Government  interposed 
its  strong  arm,  and  a  detail  of  soldiers  at  the  principal  points  through- 
out the  South  gave  a  certain  protection  to  those  whose  rights  were 
otherwise  in  danger  of  being  utterly  trodden  down.  It  certainly  has 
never  been  proved  in  a  single  instance  that  a  legal  voter  in  any 
Southern  State  was  deprived  of  his  right  of  suffrage  by  the  presence 
of  United-States  troops  in  those  States ;  but  the  issue  was  at  once 
made  by  the  Democratic  party  against  the  administration  of  President 
Grant,  that  free  elections  were  impossible  in  the  Southern  States 
unless  soldiers  of  the  Regular  Army  were  excluded;  that  their  simple 
presence  was  a  form  of  coercion  absolutely  inconsistent  with  Repub- 
lican government.  Many  of  them,  as  they  now  declared,  had  been 
willing  to  accept  a  Military  government  —  as  it  had  existed  under 
Reconstruction ;  but  they  objected  to  the  presence  of  troops  in  States 
where  self-government  had  been  conceded  by  Congress. 

There  was  undoubtedly  an  instinctive  reluctance  among  the 
people  of  all  sections  to  permit  the  location  of  troops  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  polling-places.  It  had  happened  that  in  the  long- 
continued  strife  in  Kansas,  Republicans  complained  that  the  anti- 
slavery  voters  felt  intimidated  by  the  presence  of  troops  of  the 
Regular  Army.  The  application  was,  therefore,  readily  made  to 
the  existing  case;  and  it  was  not  unnaturally  or  inaptly  asked 
whether  the  presence  of  the  military  at  the  elections  of  a~  State  of 
the  Union  was  not  even  more  offensive  than  their  presence  at  the 
elections  in  a  Territory  of  the  Union,  which  was  directly  under  the 
control  of  the  National  Government.  On  the  abstract  issue  thus 
presented  the  Republicans  were  placed  somewhat  at  a  disadvantage ; 
and  yet  every  white  man  making  the  complaint  knew  that  the  influ- 
ence of  the  troops  was  not  to  deprive  him  of  a  single  right,  but  was 
to  prevent  him  from  depriving  the  colored  man  of  all  his  rights. 

Between  the  effort,  therefore,  of  President  Grant's  administration 
to  protect  free  suffrage  in  the  South,  and  the  protest  of  the  Demo- 


THE  KU-KLUX-KLANS  OF  THE  SOUTH.  469 

cratic  party  against  protecting  it  by  the  military  arm  of  the  Govern- 
ment, a  physical  contest  ensued  in  the  Southern  States  and  a  political 
contest  throughout  the  Union.  It  was  perfectly  understood,  and 
openly  proclaimed,  in  the  North,  and  perfectly  understood,  though 
not  openly  proclaimed,  in  the  South,  that  the  withdrawal  of  the 
protection  of  the  National  Government  from  the  States  lately  in 
rebellion  meant  the  end  of  suffrage  to  the  colored  man,  or  at  least 
such  impairment  of  its  force  and  influence  as  practically  implied 
its  total  destruction.  So  bitter  was  the  hostility  to  impartial  suf- 
frage, so  determined  were  the  men  who  had  lately  been  in  re- 
bellion to  concentrate  all  the  political  power  of  the  Southern  States 
in  their  own  hands,  that  vicious  organizations,  of  which  the  most 
notable  were  the  Ku-Klux-Klans,  were  formed  throughout  the  South 
for  the  express  purpose  of  depriving  the  negro  of  the  political  rights 
conferred  upon  him  by  law.  To  effect  this  purpose  they  resorted  to 
a  series  of  outrages  calculated  to  inspire  the  negroes  with  terror  if 
they  attempted  to  resist  the  will  of  white  men. 

In  prosecuting  their  purposes  these  clans  and  organizations  hesi- 
tated at  no  cruelty,  were  deterred  by  no  considerations  of  law  or  of 
humanity.  They  rode  by  night,  were  disguised  with  masks,  were 
armed  as  freebooters.  They  whipped,  maimed,  or  murdered  the  vic- 
tims of  their  wrath.  White  men  who  were  co-operating  with  the 
colored  population  politically  were  visited  with  punishments  of 
excessive  cruelty.  It  was  difficult  to  .arrest  the  authors  of  these 
flagrant  wrongs.  Aside  from  their  disguises,  they  were  protected 
against  inculpating  testimony  by  the  fear  inspired  in  the  minds 
of  those  who  might  be  witnesses ;  and  they  were  protected  even 
by  that  portion  of  the  white  race  who  were  not  willing  to  join  in 
their  excesses.  It  was  well  said  of  the  leading  members  of  the 
clans,  that  "  murder  with  them  was  an  occupation,  and  perjury  was  a 
pastime."  The  white  man  who  should  give  testimony  against  them 
did  so  at  the  risk  of  seeing  his  house  burned,  of  being  himself  beaten 
with  many  stripes ;  and  if  the  offender  had  been  at  all  efficient  in  his 
hostility,  he  was,  after  torture,  in  many  instances,  doomed  to  death. 

Congress  did  its  utmost  to  strengthen  the  hands  of  the  President 
in  a  contest  with  these  desperate  elements.  By  the  Act  of  April  20, 
1871,  "to  enforce  the  provisions  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States"  (commonly  known  as  the 
Ku-Klux  Act,  or  the  Enforcement  Act),  the  President  was  empow- 
#  ered  to  go  to  the  extreme  of  suspending  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus 


470  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

where  peace  and  order  could  not  otherwise  be  restored.  Before 
acting  under  the  provisions  of  that  vigorous  statute,  General  Grant 
gave  warning  to  the  Southern  people  by  proclamation  of  May  3, 
1871,  that  they  might  themselves,  by  good  behavior,  prevent  the 
necessity  of  its  enforcement.  "  Sensible,"  said  the  President,  "  of 
the  responsibility  imposed  upon  the  Executive  by  the  Act  of  Con- 
gress to  which  public  attention  is  now  called,  and  reluctant  to  call 
into  exercise  any  of  the  extraordinary  powers  thereby  conferred  upon 
me,  except  in  case  of  imperative  necessity,  I  do,  nevertheless,  deem 
it  my  duty  to  make  known  that  I  will  not  hesitate  to  exhaust  the 
powers  thus  vested  in  the  Executive,  whenever  and  wherever  it  shall 
become  necessary  to  do  so,  for  the  purpose  of  securing  to  all  citizens 
of  the  United  States  the  peaceful  enjoyment  of  the  rights  guaranteed 
to  them  by  the  Constitution  and  laws."  The  extreme  power  of  sus- 
pending the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  now  placed  in  the  President's  hands 
was  limited  in  time,  and  would  necessarily  end,  if  not  renewed,  at 
the  close  of  the  next  regular  session  of  Congress. 

But  the  task  of  enforcing  obedience  to  laws,  when  obedience  is 
not  in  the  hearts  of  the  people,  is  the  most  difficult  undertaking 
ever  imposed  upon  the  governing  power.  If  the  South  had  been 
standing  alone,  if  it  had  not  been  receiving  daily  words  of  encour- 
agement, of  aid,  and  of  comfort,  from  the  North,  if  it  had  not  seen 
that  the  Democratic  party  in  Congress  was  fighting  its  battle,  it 
might  have  yielded  to  the  prestige  and  power  of  the  National  Gov- 
ernment. But  the  situation  invited,  urged,  induced  men,  to  persist. 
They  clearly  saw,  as  their  co-operating  friends  in  the  North  had  seen 
long  before,  that  a  compact  vote  of  all  the  Southern  States  could  be 
used  as  the  sure  foundation  of  a  formidable,  and,  as  they  hoped, 
irresistible  political  power.  It  was  this  hope  which  nerved  their  arm 
for  every  encounter :  it  was  this  prospect  of  domination  that  steadily 
encouraged  them  to  continue  a  battle  which  must  at  times  have 
seemed  desperate  indeed.  As  the  Southern  leaders  of  an  earlier  day 
had  strenuously  endeavored  to  maintain  equality  of  membership  in 
the  Senate,  so  now  their  successors  promised  to  themselves  such 
solidification  of  their  electoral  vote,  as  would  by  its  very  force  attract 
sufficient  strength  in  the  North  to  restore  the  South  to  a  position  of 
command  in  the  National  Government. 

The  instinctive  hostility  of  the  American  people  against  the  use 
of  troops  at  elections  was  not  the  only  weapon  of  offense  which  the 
Democratic  party  was  able  to  use  in  this  prolonged  contest.  As  soon 


ORIGIN  OF  CARPET-BAGGERS.  471 

as  the  war  had  closed  there  was  a  considerable  influx  of  Northern 
men  in  the  States  of  the  late  Confederacy.  The  original  motive 
which  induced  the  migration  was  financial  and  speculative.  A  be- 
lief was  prevalent  in  the  North  that  great  profit  might  be  derived 
from  the  cotton-culture,  and  that  with  the  assured  sympathy  of  the 
colored  men  they  would  be  able  to  command  the  requisite  labor  more 
readily  than  the  old  slave  masters.  As  a  mere  business  enterprise 
cotton-growing  at  that  period,  except  in  very  few  instances,  proved 
to  be  unprofitable.  The  complete  disorganization  of  labor  through- 
out the  South,  consequent  upon  emancipation,  had  embarrassed  pro- 
duction and  added  largely  to  its  cost.  It  would  inevitably  require 
time  to  build  up  a  labor-system  based  on  the  new  relation  of  the 
negro  to  the  white  race,  and  it  was  the  misfortune  of  the  Northern 
men  to  embark  on  their  venture  at  the  time  of  all  others  when  it 
was  least  likely  to  prove  remunerative.  But  these  men,  though 
pecuniarily  unsuccessful,  quickly  formed  relations  of  kindliness  and 
friendship  with  the  negro  race.  They  addressed  them  in  different 
tone,  treated  them  in  a  different  manner,  from  that  which  they  had 
been  accustomed  in  the  past  to  receive  from  the  white  race,  and  it 
was  natural  that  a  feeling  of  friendship  should  grow  up  between  the 
liberated  and  those  whom  they  regarded  as  liberators.  « 

It  was  soon  apparent  that,  under  the  protection  of  the  National 
power  and  with  the  numerical  superiority  of  the  negroes  in  several 
States  (certain  Southern  leaders  being  under  political  disabilities), 
it  would  be  easy  for  the  loyal  white  men  to  obtain  control  of  the 
local  governments.  Out  of  'these  circumstances  there  came  into 
political  power  the  class  of  men  known  as  "  Carpet-baggers  "  —  so  de- 
scribed from  the  insulting  presumption  that  the  entire  worldly  estate 
of  each  one  of  the  class  was  carried  in  a  carpet-bag,  enabling  him  to 
fly  at  any  moment  of  danger  from  the  State  whose  domestic  policy 
he  sought  to  control.  The  prospect  of  the  success  of  the  new  move- 
ment induced  a  number  of  former  rebels  to  join  in  it,  and  to  them 
the  epithet  of  "  Scalawag  "  was  applied.  This  combination  was  not 
without  disadvantages  to  the  negro.  By  as  much  as  it  gave  strength 
to  his  political  organization,  it  increased  the  hatred  and  desperation 
of  the  ruling  element  among  the  whites,  and  demonstrated  that  the 
negro  could  secure  the  rights  conferred  upon  him  by  the  Constitution 
and  laws,  only  through  violence  and  bloodshed. 

Many  of  those  denounced  under  the  epithet  of  Carpet-bagger  and 
Scalawag  were  honorable  and  true  men;  but  a  majority  of  these 


472  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

were  unobtrusive  and  not  brought  strongly  into  popular  view: 
while  many  of  those  who  became  entrusted  with  the  power  of 
State  governments  and  found  themselves  unexpectedly  in  possession 
of  great  authority  were  not  morally  equal  to  its  responsibility. 
The  consequence  was  that  some  of  the  States  had  wretched  govern- 
ments, officered  by  bad  men,  who  misled  the  negro  and  engaged  in 
riotous  corruption.  Their  transgressions  were  made  so  conspicuous 
that  the  Republican  leaders  of  other  Southern  States,  who  were 
really  trying  to  act  their  part  worthily  and  honorably,  were  obscured 
from  view,  and  did  not  obtain  a  fair  hearing  at  the  bar  of  public 
opinion.  The  government  of  South  Carolina,  under  its  series  of  Re- 
publican administrations,  was  of  such  character  as  brought  shame  upon 
the  Republican  party,  exposed  the  negro  voters  to  unmerited  obloquy, 
and  thus  wrought  for  the  cause  of  free  government  and  equal  suffrage 
in  the  South  incalculable  harm.  These  Southern  State  governments 
proved  a  source  of  angry  contention  inside  the  Republican  party  in 
the  North,  and  thus  brought  one  more  calamity  to  the  negro,  and 
gave  one  more  advantage  to  the  rebel  element  of  the  South  that  so 
persistently  sought  for  his  disfranchisement. 

The  hostility  of  Southern  men  to  Carpet-bag  rule  was  instinctive 
and  irrepressible.  The  failure  of  the  rebellion  left  its  participants 
stripped  of  property,  depressed  in  spirit,  angry  and  unreconciled. 
Northern  men  appearing  among  them  recalled  in  an  offensive 
manner  the  power  that  had  overcome  and  as  they  thought  humili- 
ated them,  —  recalled  it  before  time  had  made  them  familiar  with 
the  new  order  of  things,  before  they  could  subject  themselves 
to  the  discipline  of  adversity,  and  gracefully  accept  the  inevitable. 
Even  the  most  decorous  and  considerate  behavior  on  the  part  of 
these  men  would  perhaps  have  failed  to  conciliate  the  Southern 
population.  But  while  unable  to  do  this,  they  could  no  doubt  in 
due  season  have  secured  public  confidence  if  they  had  administered 
the  trusts  confided  to  them  with  an  eye  single  to  the  prosperity  and 
happiness  of  the  people  over  whom  by  a  strange  concurrence  of 
circumstances  they  were  empowered  to  rule.  If  these  men  had  in 
all  cases  established  as  good  and  trustworthy  governments  in  the 
South  as  they  had  been  reared  under  in  the  North,  they  would  have 
conferred  upon  all  the  reconstructed  States  a  blessing  which  as  pre- 
judice wore  away  would  have  caused  their  names  to  be  respected 
and  honored.  Their  governments  were  however  demoralized  by  the 
violent  and  murderous  course  of  the  clans  organized  to  resist  them. 


THE  ORIGINAL  UNION  MEN.  473 

In  the  play  between  the  two  forces,  —  a  government  too  weak  to 
command  respect ;  a  native  population  too  resentful  to  yield  obedi- 
ence, —  a  state  of  social  disorder  and  political  chaos  resulted,  which 
would  in  advance  have  seemed  impossible  among  any  people  clothed 
with  the  right  of  self-government,  and  living  under  a  Republic  of 
vast  power  and  prestige. 

The  Republicans  lost  in  many  of  the  Southern  States  a  valuable 
support  upon  which  they  had  counted  with  confidence.  Union  men 
whom  no  persecution  could  break  and  no  blandishments  could  seduce, 
were  to  be  found  in  the  South  at  the  outbreak  of  the  rebellion.  They 
were  men  who  in  a  less  conspicuous  way  held  the  same  faith  that  in- 
spired Andrew  Johnson  and  William  G.  Brownlow  during  the  war. 
It  was  the  influence  and  example  of  this  class  of  men  which  had 
contributed  to  the  Union  Army  so  large  a  number  of  white  soldiers 
from  the  rebellious  States,  —  numbering  in  the  aggregate  more  than 
one  hundred  thousand  men.  Tennessee  alone  furnished  at  least 
thirty-five  thousand  white  troops  as  brave  as  ever  followed  the  flag. 
The  Carolinas,  Virginia,  Georgia,  Alabama,  all  furnished  loyal  men 
from  their  mountain  districts ;  and  beyond  the  Mississippi  a  valuable 
contingent  came  from  Arkansas  and  Texas. 

The  men  who  had  the  courage  to  stand  for  the  Union  in  time  of 
war  should  not  have  separated  from  its  friends  in  time  of  peace.  If 
Reconstruction  had  been  completed  according  to  the  first  design,  on 
the  basis  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  these  men  would  have  re- 
mained solidly  hostile  to  the  Southern  Democracy.  But  as  the  con- 
test waxed  warm,  as  negro  suffrage  became  a  prominent  issue,  many 
of  them  broke  away  from  their  associations  and  became  the  bitterest 
foes  of  the  Republican  party.  They  followed  Andrew  Johnson  and 
partook  of  his  spirit.  But  against  all  adverse  influences,  some  of  the 
truest  and  best  of  this  class  of  Union  men  remained  with  the  Re- 
publican party.  If  the  whole  number  had  proved  steadfast,  they 
would  have  formed  the  centre  of  a  strong  and  growing  influence  in 
the  South  which  in  many  localities  would  have  been  able  —  as  in 
East  Tennessee  —  to  resist  the  combined  rebel  power  of  their  respec- 
tive communities.  Under  such  protection  the  colored  vote,  intelli- 
gently directed  and  defended,  could  have  resisted  the  violence  which 
has  practically  deprived  it  of  all  influence.  Every  day  affords  fresh 
proof  of  the  disasters  which  have  resulted  to  the  Republican  party  of 
the  South  from  the  loss  of  so  large  a  proportion  of  the  original  Union 
men. 


474  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Perhaps  the  most  serious  charge  brought  against  the  Republican 
policy  by  the  Southern  men,  was  that  the  negro  was  advanced  to  the 
right  of  suffrage,  while  a  portion  of  the  white  population  were  placed 
under  such  political  disabilities  as  prevented  their  voting.  This 
allegation  is  often  made,  however,  in  a  way  that  leads  to  erroneous 
impressions,  because  as  matter  of  fact  it  was  not  the  policy  of  Con- 
gress to  deprive  any  man  of  the  right  of  suffrage.  Congress  even 
left  the  voting  franchise  in  full  force  with  those  who  were  under 
such  political  disabilities  as  forbade  their  holding  office.  It  is  true 
that  in  a  certain  election  under  the  Reconstruction  laws  the  voter 
was  subjected  to  a  test-oath,  but  this  condition  was  imposed  under 
what  seemed  to  be  a  fair  plea  of  necessity ;  for  it  was  applied  in  the 
South  only  after  the  entire  white  population  had  refused  to  recon- 
struct their  States  on  the  basis  first  freely  offered  them,  with  no 
restriction  on  white  suffrage,  and  even  before  the  negro  was  empow- 
ered to  vote.  Fearing  from  this  experience  that  any  organization  of 
a  State  under  the  auspices  of  Republican  power  might  be  voted  down, 
Congress  resorted  to  the  expedient  of  confining  the  suffrage  in  the 
preliminary  stage  to  those  who  had  not  rebelled,  and  who  could 
therefore  be  firmly  trusted  to  establish  a  loyal  government. 

While  the^  National  Government  refrained  from  withholding  the 
elective  franchise  from  men  who  had  fought  to  destroy  the  Union, 
there  is  no  doubt  that  disabilities  and  exclusions  were  imposed  upon 
large  classes  in  certain  States  of  the  South.  But  perhaps  even  here 
there  have  been  exaggeration  and  misunderstanding,  for  in  some 
of  the  reconstructed  States, — notably  Georgia,  Florida,  and  the 
Carolinas, — there  were  no  test-oaths  and  no  exclusion  from  the  right 
of  suffrage  by  reason  of  participation  in  the  rebellion ;  and  yet  hos- 
tility to  the  Reconstruction  Acts,  and  personal  wrongs  and  injuries 
to  the  colored  men,  were  quite  as  marked  in  these  States  as  in  those 
where  certain  classes  of  citizens  labored  under  the  stigma  of  exclu- 
sion from  the  ballot.  Possibly  it  might  be  said  that  exclusion,  even 
in  one  State,  was  an  odious  discrimination  which  all  who  had  taken 
part  in  the  rebellion  would,  from  a  feeling  of  fellowship,  resent  and 
resist.  But  the  truth  remains,  nevertheless,  that  in  the  Southern 
States  in  which  no  test-oaths  were  applied  disturbance,  disorder, 
and  resistance  to  law  were  as  frequent  and  flagrant  as  in  those 
where  suffrage  had  in  some  degree  been  qualified  and  restricted. 

The  original  difficulty  was  the  rejection  of  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment by  the  South  —  a  difficulty  that  recurred  not  only  at  every 


UNWISE  COURSE  OF  THE  SOUTH.  475 

subsequent  step  of  reconstruction,  but  was  even  more  plainly  de- 
monstrated after  reconstruction  was  nominally  complete.  If  that 
Amendment  had  been  accepted  by  the  Southern  States  as  the  basis 
of  reconstruction,  the  suffrage  of  the  colored  man  would  have  fol- 
lowed as  a  necessity  and  a  boon  to  the  South.  It  would  have  origi- 
nated in  popular  demand,  and  the  State  authorities,  instead  of 
expending  their  power  in  resisting  the  decree  of  the  Nation,  would 
have  upheld  the  same  franchise  with  all  the  earnestness  which  the 
combined  power  of  necessity  and  self-interest  could  inspire.  It  is 
difficult  to  compute  the  loss  and  the  suffering  endured  by  the  South 
from  the  folly  of  rejecting  a  Constitutional  Amendment,  which  they 
could  have  had  with  all  its  benefits,  and  which  they  were  compelled 
afterwards  to  accept  with  all  its  burdens.  This  unhappy  result  to 
the  South  was  the  fruit  of  their  unwise  adherence  to  Andrew  Johnson 
in  a  political  battle  which  he  was  predestined  to  lose. 

It  was  not  unnatural  that  the  unwise  action  on  the  part  of  the 
South  should  lead  to  unwise  action  on  the  part  of  the  North ;  but 
it  must  be  remembered  that  if  mistakes  were  made  in  the  system 
of  reconstruction  they  were  for  a  day  only,  while  the  objects  sought 
were  for  all  time.  The  misfortune  was,  that  the  mistakes  blinded 
the  eyes  of  many  candid  and  patriotic  men  to  the  real  merit 
of  the  struggle.  It  is  not  the  first  time  in  history  where  a  great 
and  noble  purpose  has  been  weakened  and  thwarted  by  preju- 
dices aroused  against  the  means  used  to  effect  it.  The  design  was 
broad,  patriotic,  generous,  and  statesmanlike :  the  means  to  attain  it 
aroused  prejudices  which  created  obstacles  at  every  step  and  led  to 
almost  fatal  embarrassment.  The  elevation  of  a  race,  the  stamping 
out  of  the  last  vestige  of  caste,  the  obliteration  of  cruel  wrongs, 
were  the  objects  aimed  at  by  the  Republicans.  If  they  remain 
unaccomplished,  or  only  partially  accomplished,  no  discredit  can 
attach  to  the  great  political  organization  which  entertained  lofty 
conceptions  of  human  rights,  and  projected  complete  measures  for 
their  realization.  That  prejudice  should  stand  in  the  way  of  prin- 
ciple, that  subsidiary  issues  should  embarrass  the  attainment  of  great 
ends,  that  personal  and  partisan  interests  should  for  a  time  override 
the  nobler  instincts  of  philanthropy,  must  be  regarded  with  regret, 
but  not  with  discouragement. 


CHAPTEE  XX. 

RESENTMENT  AGAINST  ENGLAND.  —  POPULAR  FEELING  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.  —  CON- 
DUCT OF  THE  PALMERSTON  MINISTRY.  —  HOSTILE  SPEECHES  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  COM- 
MONS.—  MR.  ROEBUCK.  —  LORD  ROBERT  CECIL.  —  CONDUCT  OF  THE  TORIES.  —  OF 
THE  LIBERALS.  — CRITICISMS  OF  THE  BRITISH  PRESS.  —  SOUTH  COMPARED  WITH 
IRELAND.  — UNITED  STATES  DEMANDS  COMPENSATION. —REFUSED  BY  ENGLAND.— 
NEGOTIATIONS.  —  JOHNSON-CLARENDON  TREATY.  —  REJECTED  BY  SENATE.  —  CHAR- 
ACTER OF  TREATY.  —  SPEECH  OF  MR.  SUMNER.  —  POSITION  OF  PRESIDENT  GRANT. 

—  NEGOTIATION  CLOSED.  —  ENGLAND  ASKS  THAT  IT  BE  RE-OPENED.  —  JOINT  HIGH 
COMMISSION.  —  ITS  DELIBERATIONS. — ITS  BASIS  OF  SETTLEMENT.  —  GENEVA  AWARD. 

—  THE  THREE  RULES.  —  ENGLAND'S  COURSE  IN  REGARD  THERETO. — PRIVATE  CLAIMS 
ADJUSTED.  — THE  SAN  JUAN  QUESTION.  —  ITS  FINAL  SETTLEMENT.  —  HON.  GEORGE 
BANCROFT. 

ri  1HE  civil  war  closed  with  ill-feeling  amounting  to  resentment 
_J_  towards  England  on  the  part  of  the  loyal  citizens  of  the  United 
States.  They  believed  that  the  Government  of  Great  Britain,  and 
especially  the  aristocratic  and  wealthy  classes  (whose  influence  in  the 
kingdom  is  predominant),  had  desired  the  destruction  of  the  Union, 
and  had  connived  at  it  so  far  as  connivance  was  safe ;  they  believed 
that  great  harm  had  been  inflicted  on  the  American  marine  by  rebel 
cruisers  built  in  English  ship-yards  and  manned  with  English  sailors; 
they  believed  that  the  war  had  been  cruelly  prolonged  by^the  Con- 
federate hope  of  British  intervention,  —  a  hope  stimulated  by  the 
utterances  of  high  officials  of  the  British  Government ;  they  believed 
that  her  Majesty's  Ministers  would  have  been  willing  at  -any  time 
to  recognize  the  Southern  Confederacy,  if  it  could  have  been  done 
without  the  danger  of  a  European  conflict,  the  effect  of  which  upon 
the  interests  of  England  could  not  be  readily  measured. 

Their  belief  did  not  wait  for  legal  proofs  or  written  arguments, 
nor  was  it  in  any  degree  restrained  by  technicalities.  The  American 
people  had  followed  the  varying  fortunes  of  the  war  with  intense 
solicitude,  and  had  made  up  their  minds  that  the  British  Government 
throughout  the  contest  had  been  unfriendly  and  offensive,  manifestly 
violating  at  every  step  the  fair  and  honorable  duty  of  a  neutral. 

476 


POPULAR  FEELING  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.  477 

They  did  not  ground  their  conclusions  upon  any  specially  enunciated 
principles  of  international  law  ;  they  did  not  seek  to  demonstrate,  by 
quotations  from  accepted  authorities,  that  England  had  failed  in  this 
or  in  that  respect  to  perform  her  duty  towards  the  American  Govern- 
ment. They  simply  recognized  that  England's  hand  had  been  against 
us,  concealed  somewhat,  and  used  indirectly,  but  still  heavily  against 
us.  They  left  to  the  officers  of  their  own  Government  the  respon- 
sible task  of  stating  the  law  and  submitting  the  evidence  when  the 
proper  time  should  come. 

Perhaps  the  mass  of  the  people  in  no  other  country  keep  so  close 
a  watch  upon  the  progress  of  public  events  as  is  kept  by  the  people 
of  the  United  States.  If  the  scholarship  of  the  few  is  not  so  thor- 
ough as  in  certain  European  countries,  the  intelligence  of  the  many 
is  far  beyond  that  of  any  other  nation.  The  popular  conclusions, 
therefore,  touching  the  conduct  of  England,  did  not  spring  from 
imagination  or  from  prejudice ;  nor  were  they  the  result  of  illogical 
inference.  To  the  outside  world  the  British  Government  is  the  Brit- 
ish Parliament;  and  citizens  of  the  United  States  knew  that  their 
country  had  been  subjected  in  the  House  of  Lords  and  in  the  House 
of  Commons  to  every  form  of  misrepresentation,  to  every  insult  which 
malice  could  invent,  to  every  humiliation  which  insolence  and  arro- 
gance could  inflict.  The  most  distant  generation  of  Americans  will 
never  be  able  to  read  the  Parliamentary  reports  from  1861  to  1865 
without  indignation.  Discussions  touching  the  condition  of  the 
United  States  occupied  no  small  share  of  the  time  in  both  Houses, 
and  in  the  House  of  Lords  cordiality  was  never  expressed  for  the 
Union.  In  the  House  of  Commons  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  had  sympathizing  friends,  eloquent  defenders,  though  few  in 
number.  Bright,  Forster,  Cobden,  and  men  of  that  class,  spoke 
brave  words  in  defense  of  the  cause  for  which  brave  deeds  were  done 
by  their  kindred  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic  —  a  kindred  always 
more  eager  to  cherish  gratitude  than  to  nurture  revenge. 

But  from  the  Government  of  England,  terming  itself  Liberal,  with 
Lord  Palmerston  at  its  head,  Earl  Russell  as  Foreign  Secretary,  Mr. 
Gladstone  as  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  the  Duke  of  Argyll  as 
Lord  Privy  Seal,  and  Earl  Granville  as  Lord  President  of  the  Coun- 
cil, not  one  friendly  word  was  sent  across  the  Atlantic.  A  formal 
neutrality  was  declared  by  Government  officials,  while  its  spirit  was 
daily  violated.  If  the  Republic  had  been  a  dependency  of  Great 
Britain,  like  Canada  or  Australia,  engaged  in  civil  strife,  it  could 


478  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

not  have  been  more  steadily  subjected  to  review,  to  criticism,  and 
to  the  menace  of  discipline.  The  proclamations  of  President  Lincoln, 
the  decisions  of  Federal  courts,  the  orders  issued  by  commanders 
of  the  Union  armies,  were  frequently  brought  to  the  attention  of  Par- 
liament, as  if  America  were  in  some  way  accountable  to  the  judgment 
of  England.  Harsh  comment  came  from  leading  British  statesmen ; 
while  the  most  ribald  defamers  of  the  United  States  met  with  cheers 
from  a  majority  of  the  House  of  Commons,  and  indulged  in  the  bit- 
terest denunciation  of  a  friendly  Government  without  rebuke  from 
the  Ministerial  benches.1 

1  The  following  extracts  are  from  Hansard's  Parliamentary  Debates:  — 
May  16th,  1861.  Earl  Derby,  in  discussing  our  blockade  of  the  Southern  coast, 
said  :  "A  blockade  extending  over  a  space  to  which  it  is  physically  impossible  that  an 
effectual  blockade  can  be  applied  will  not  be  recognized  as  valid  by  the  British  Govern- 
ment." And  he  intimated  that  "it  is  essentially  necessary  that  the  Northern  States 
should  not  be  induced  to  rely  upon  our  forbearance." 

—  Feb.  10,  1862.    Earl  Derby  discussed  the  right  of  Mr.  Lincoln  to  suspend  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus,  and  even  when  Congress  had  passed  a  resolution  affirming  the  course 
taken  by  the  President,  the  noble  Earl  declared  that  "No  law  can  be  shown  to  support 
the  President's  exercise  of  the  power." 

—  May  28,  1861.    Mr.  Bernal  Osborne,  in  discussing  the  civil  war  in  the  United  States, 
said  :  "  If  this  were  the  proper  time,  I  could  point  to  outrages  committed  by  the  militia 
of  New  York  in  one  of  the  Southern  States  occupied  by  them,  where  the  General  com- 
manding, on  the  pretext  that  one  of  his  men  had  been  poisoned  by  strychnine,  issued 
an  order  of  the  day,  threatening  to  put  a  slave  into  every  man's  house  to  incite  the 
slaves  to  murder  their  masters.    Such  was  the  general  order  issued  by  General  Butler." 

—  Feb.  17,  1862.    Lord  Palmerston  discussed  the  Constitutional  powers  of  the  Govern- 
ment, and  said  he  knew  that  Mr.  Seward  and  Mr.  Lincoln  could  not  make  war  upon 
their  own  authority.    "  We  know  that  very  well.    It  reqiiires  the  sanction  of  the  Senate" 

—  March  7,  1862.    Mr.  Gregory,  in  discussing  the  blockade  of  the  Southern  ports,  said  : 
"  Now  I  can  assure  my  honorable  friend  that,  so  far  as  I  was  concerned,  I  should  have 
made  use  of  no  irritating  expression.   I  should  have  affirmed  then,  as,  undeterred  by 
what  has  occurred  since  then,  I  affirm  now,  that  secession  was  a  right,  that  separation 
is  a  fact,  and  that  reconstruction  is  an  impossibility."    Mr.  Gregory  denounced  Mr. 
Seward  as  "lax,  unscrupulous,  and  lawless  of  the  rights  of  others." 

—  March  7, 1862.  General  Butler's  orders  were  discussed  by  the  Earl  of  Carnarvon,  in  the 
Lords,  and  by  Sir  John  Walsh  and  Mr.  Gregory  in  Commons.    Lord  Palmerston  was 
pleased  to  tell  them  that  "  with  regard  to  the  course  which  Her  Majesty's  Government 
may,  upon  consideration,  take  on  the  subject,  the  House  I  trust  will  allow  me  to  say  that 
that  will  be  matter  of  reflection." 

—  March  7,  1862.    Mr.  G.  W.  P.  Bentinck  made  a  very  bitter  and  abusive  speech  of  the 
United  States,  and  invited  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  offer  some  explanation  why, 
according  to  the  policy  which  they  had  pursued  with  respect  to  Italian  affairs,  they  had 
abstained  from  recognizing  the  independence  of  the  Confederacy.    He  sneeringly  re- 
ferred to  the  "  endless  corruption  in  every  public  department  in  the  Northern  States." 

—  April  23, 1863.    Mr.  G.  W.  P.  Bentinck  transcended  every  limit  of  courtesy  when  in 
referring  to  Mr.  Adams  he  said  :  "The  idea  of  the  American  Minister  of  honesty  and 
neutrality  is  remarkable.    Every  thing  is  honest  to  suit  his  own  purposes." 

—  March  7,  1862.    Lord  Robert  Cecil,  in  discussing  the  blockade  of  the  Southern  coast, 
said:  "  The  plain  matter  of  fact  is,  as  every  one  who  watches  the  current  of  history  must 


BRITISH  HOSTILITY  TO  THE  UNION.  479 

The  notorious  Mr.  Roebuck,  in  a  debate,  March  14,  1864,  upon 
the  progress  of  the  civil  war,  said :  "  The  whole  proceedings  in  this 
American  war  are  a  blot  upon  human  nature ;  and  when  I  am  told 
that  I  should  have  sympathy  for  the  Northern  States  of  America,  I 
turn  in  absolute  disgust  from  their  hypocrisy.  If  there  is  a  sink  of 
political  iniquity,  it  is  at  Washington.  They  are  corrupt ;  they  are 
base ;  they  are  cowardly ;  they  are  cruel."  This  highly  indecorous 
speech  was  made  in  the  presence  of  members  of  the  British  Min- 
istry. The  Premier,  Lord  Palmerston,  followed  Mr.  Roebuck  on 
the  floor,  calling  him  his  "  honorable  and  learned  friend,"  and  offering 

know,  that  the  Northern  States  of  America  never  can  be  our  sure  friends,  for  this  simple 
reason  —  not  merely  because  the  newspapers  write  at  each  other,  or  that  there  are 
prejudices  on  both  sides,  but  because  we  are  rivals,  rivals  politically,  rivals  commer- 
cially. We  aspire  to  the  same  position.  We  both  aspire  to  the  government  of  the  seas. 
We  are  both  manufacturing  people,  and  in  every  port,  as  well  as  at  every  court,  we  are 
rivals  to  each  other.  .  .  .  With  respect  to  the  Southern  States,  the  case  is  entirely  re- 
versed. The  population  are  an  agricultural  people.  They  furnish  the  raw  material  of 
our  industry,  and  they  consume  the  products  which  we  manufacture  from  it.  With 
them,  therefore,  every  interest  must  lead  us  to  cultivate  friendly  relations,  and  we 
have  seen  that  when  the  war  began  they  at  once  recurred  to  England  as  their  natural 
ally." 

—  March  14,  1864.    Lord  Robert  Cecil,  in  discussing  the  Neutrality  Act,  admitting  that 
no  case  of  enlistment  had  been  proved  against  the  United  States,  affirmed  that  American 
agents  were  inducing  men  to  go  to  America  to  obtain  industrial  employment,  and  said: 
"  When  they  get  there  they  are  enlisted."    "  What  do  the  Confederates  do  ?    Why,  they 
ask  also  to  be  allowed  to  obtain  peaceful  ships  which  shall  leave  our  harbors  in  that 
condition,  and  which,  directly  they  get  out  of  our  jurisdiction,  become  vessels  of  war. 
The  case  is  precisely  the  same  in  both  cases  —  the  raw  material,  so  to  speak,  of  the  soldier 
or  the  vessel  of  war,  is  bought  in  this  country,  but  it  is  not  converted  into  a  belligerent 
implement  until  out  of  our  jurisdiction.    I  confess  it  seems  to  me  that  the  offence  —  if 
offence  it  be  —  is  exactly  the  same  in  both  cases  ;  and  it  is  unjust  to  charge  one  party 
with  a  desire  to  elude  the  law  when  you  do  not  make  the  same  charge  against  the  other." 

—  July  18, 1862.    Mr.  Lindsay,  in  discussing  the  question  of  the  civil  war,  said:  "The 
re-establishment  of  the  Union  is  indeed  hopeless.    That  being  so,  —  if  we  come  to  that 
conclusion,  —  it  behooves  England,  in  concert,  I  hope,  with  the  great  Powers  of  Europe, 
to  offer  her  mediation,  and  to  ask  these  States  to  consider  the  great  distress  among  the 
people  of  this  country  caused  entirely  by  this  unhappy  civil  war  which  is  now  raging." 

—  Aug.  4,  1862.     Lord  Campbell  (discussing  the  civil  war)  said  :  "  But  if  the  present 
moment  is  abandoned  what  are  we  to  wait  for?    Not  for  Northern  victories.    Such  vic- 
tories would  clearly  limit  our  capacity  to  acknowledge  Southern  independence,  as  it  was 
limited  from  the  defeat  and  death  of  Zollicoffer  in  the  winter  down  to  the  events  which 
have  lately  driven  General  McClellan  to  the  river.     We  are  to  wait,  therefore,  for  new 
misfortunes  to  the  Government  of  Washington  before  we  grant  to  this  unhappy  strife  the  pos- 
sibility of  closing." 

—  March  23,  1863.    Lord  Campbell  said:  "Swelling  with  omnipotence,  Mr.  Lincoln  and 
his  colleagues  dictate  insurrection  to  the  slaves  of  Alabama."    And  he  spoke  of  the 
administration  as  "  ready  to  let  loose  four  million  negroes  on  their  compulsory  owners 
and  to  renew  from  sea  to  sea  the  horrors  and  crimes  of  San  Domingo."  —  He  argued 
earnestly  in  favor  of  the  British  Government  joining  the  government  of  France  in  ac- 
knowledging Southern  independence.    He  boasted  that  within  the  last  few  days  a 


480  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

neither  rebuke  nor  objection  to  the  words  he  had  used.  On  the  con- 
trary, with  jaunty  recklessness  he  accused  the  American  Government 
of  secretly  and  cunningly  recruiting  its  armies  in  Ireland,  by  inducing 
Irishmen  to  emigrate  as  laborers  and  "  then  to  enlist  in  some  Ohio 

Southern  loan  of  £3,000,000  sterling  had  been  offered  in  London,  and  that  £9,000,000  were 
subscribed.  He  said  :  "  Southern  recognition  will  take  away  from  the  Northern  mind 
the  hope  which  lingers  yet  of  Southern  subjugation.  From  the  Government  of  Washing- 
ton it  will  take  away  the  power  of  describing  eleven  communities  contending  for  their 
liberty  as  rebels.  .  .  .  Victorious  already,  animated  then,  the  Southern  armies  would  be 
doubly  irresistible.  They  would  not  have,  if  they  retain  it  now,  the  power  to  be  van- 
quished." 

—  Feb.  5,  1863.    Earl  Malmesbury  spoke  disdainfully  of  treating  with  so  extraordinary  a 
body  as  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  and  referred  to  the  horrors  of  the  war,  — 
"  horrors  unparalleled  even  in  the  wars  of  barbarous  nations." 

—  March  27, 1863.    Mr.  Laird  of  Birkenhead  (the  builder  of  the  Alabama  and  the  rebel 
rams)  was  loudly  cheered  when  he  declared  that "  the  institutions  of  the  United  States  are 
of  no  value  whatever,  and  have  reduced  the  very  name  of  liberty  to  an  utter  absurdity." 

—  April  23,  1863.    Mr.  Roebuck  declared  "  that  the  whole  conduct  of  the  people  of  the 
North  is  such  as  proves  them  not  only  unfit  for  the  government  of  themselves,  but  unfit 
for  the  courtesies  and  the  community  of  the  civilized  world."    Referring  to  some  case  of 
an  English  ship  that  had  been  seized  by  an  American  man-of-war,  he  declared  :  "  It  may 
lead  to  war;  and  I,  speaking  here  for  the  English  people,  am  prepared  for  war.    I  know 
that  language  will  strike  the  heart  of  the  peace  party  in  this  country,  but  it  will  also 
strike  the  heart  of  the  insolent  people  who  govern  America." 

—  Lord  Palmerston,  Prime  Minister,  simply  replied,  without  other  comment,  that  the 
question  to  which  Mr.  Roebuck  referred  "  is  of  the  greatest  possible  importance." 

—  June  30,  1863.    Mr.  Roebuck  asserted  that  "  the  South  will  never  come  into  the  Union, 
and  what  is  more,  I  hope  it  never  may.  I  will  tell  you  why  I  say  so.  America  while  she  was 
united  ran  a  race  of  prosperity  unparalleled  in  the  world.   Eighty  years  made  the  Repub- 
lic such  a  power,  that  if  she  had  continued  as  she  was  a  few  years  longer  she  would  have 
been  the  great  bully  of  the  world.  ...  As  far  as  my  influence  goes,  I  am  determined  to 
do  all  I  can  to  prevent  the  reconstruction  of  the  Union.  ...  I  say  then  that  the  Southern 
States  have  indicated  their  right  to  recognition  ;  they  hold  out  to  us  advantages  such  as 
the  world  has  never  seen  before.    I  hold  that  it  will  be  of  the  greatest  importance  that 
the  reconstruction  of  the  Union  should  not  take  place." 

—  April  24,  1863.    Mr.  Horsman  of  Stroud  said  :  "We  have  seen  the  leviathan  power  of 
the  North  broken  and  driven  back,  with  nothing  to  show  for  two  years  of  unparalleled 
preparation  and  vast  human  sacrifice  but  failure  and  humiliation;  the  conquest  of  the 
South  more  hopeless  and  unachievable  than  ever,  and  Washington  at  this  moment  in 
greater  jeopardy  than  Richmond.  ...  I  am  not  surprised  that  we  should  hear  the  ques- 
tions asked  now,  '  How  long  are  these  afflictions  to  be  endured  ?    How  long  are  the 
cotton  ports  of  the  South  to  remain  sealed  to  Europe  ?    How  long  are  France  and  Eng- 
land to  be  debarred  from  intercourse  with  friendly  States  that  owe  no  more  allegiance 
to  the  North  than  they  owe  to  the  Pope  ?    And  how  long  are  our  patient  but  suffering 
operatives  to  remain  the  victims  of  an  extinct  authority  and  an  aggressive  and  a  malevo- 
lent Legislature  ?'  " 

—  June  15, 1863.     The  Marquis  of  Clanricarde  objected  to  our  blockade,  and  said  it  was 
kept  up  "  although  every  man  of  common  sense  in  the  United  States  is  now  con- 
vinced that  it  is  impossible  to  compel  the  Southern  States  to  re-enter  the  Union. 
...  It  is  the  duty  of  the  British  Government  not  to  allow  these  infractions  of  mari- 
time law  to  continue,  which  are  in  effect  setting  aside  all  law  and  practice  as  hitherto 
maintained." 


SPEECHES  IN  BRITISH  PARLIAMENT.  481 

regiment  or  other,  and  become  soldiers  with  the  chance  of  plunder, 
and  God  knows  what  besides." 

Lord  Robert  Cecil,  since  known  as  the  Marquis  of  Salisbury,  and 
at  present  (1885)  Premier  of  England,  only  a  few  months  before 

—  June  26,  1863.    The  Marquis  of  Clanricarde  thought  that  "  proceedings  of  American 
prize  courts  should  be  closely  watched,  for  if  doctrines  are  admitted  there  contrary  to 
those  maintained  in  the  highest  courts  of  this  country,  great  confusion  will  be  the  result 
hereafter." 

—  June  29, 1863.    Mr.  Peacocke,  complaining  of  some  decisions  made  in  the  prize  courts 
of  the  United  States,  said  :  "  It  is  therefore  the  duty  of  the  House  to  see  how  the  law  is 
administered  in  those  courts."    He  confessed  that  he  greatly  distrusted  these  prize  courts 
as  they  were  at  that  time  constituted. 

—  June  30,  1863.    Mr.  Clifford  spoke  of  the  "  wanton  barbarity  with  which  the  Federal 
Government  has  allowed  its  officers  to  wage  the  war,  as  though  they  sought  to  emulate 
the  ravages  of  Attila  and  Genghis-Khan.  .  .  .  And  these  things  were  done  not  for 
military  objects  which  would  afford  some  excuse  for  them,  but  out  of  such  sheer  wanton 
malice  that  even  the  negroes  looked  on  disgusted  and  aghast." 

—  Feb.  9,  1864.    Mr.  Haliburton  said  :   "The  Canadians  feel  that  the  Americans  are  a 
lawless  people,  who  are  bound  by  no  ties,  who  disregard  International  Law,  who  resort 
to  violence  and  force." 

—  March  4,  1864.    Lord  Robert  Montagu  tauntingly  remarked  that   it  seemed  to  him 
"  that  it  is  the  Federals  who  are  bound  to  stop  the  depredations  of  the  Alabama.    "Why 
have  they  not  a  ship  quick  enough  to  catch  her  and  strong  enough  to  destroy  her  ?  " 

—  March  14,  1864.    Sir  James  Fergusson  declared  that  "wholesale  peculations  and  rob- 
bery have  been  perpetrated  under  the  form  of  war  by  the  Generals  of  the  Federal  States, 
and  worse  horrors  than,  I  believe,  have  ever  in  the  present  century  disgraced  European 
armies,  have  been  perpetrated  under  the  eyes  of  the  Federal  Government  and  yet 
remain  unpunished.    These  things  are  notorious  as  the  proceedings  of  a  Government 
which  seems  anxious  to  rival  one  despotic  and  irresponsible  power  of  Europe  in  its 
contempt  for  the  public  opinion  of  mankind." 

—  March  18,1864.    The  Earl  of  Donoughmore,  referring  to  a  statement  in  regard  to 
enlistments  made  by  Captain  Winslow  of  the  United  States  ship  Kearsarge,  said  that 
"  either  he  stated  what  was  a  transparent  falsehood  or  else  he  was  not  fit  for  his  post." 
He  then  added:  "  The  fact,  however,  is  that  any  transparent  falsehood  seems  to  be  a  suf- 
ficient excuse  for  a  particular  line  of  conduct  when  it  comes  from  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment." 

—  May  19,  1864.    Mr.  Alderman  Rose  declared  "the  whole  system  of  Government  in 
the  Northern  States  is  false,  rotten,  and  corrupt ;  while  the  South  is  making  for  itself 
a  great  name  and  a  glorious  history." 

—  June  9,  1864.    Lord  Brougham  said  that  he  believed  there  was  "  but  one  universal 
feeling  not  only  in  this  country,  but  all  over  Europe,  of  reprobation  of  the  continuance 
of  this  war,  of  deep  lamentation  for  its  existence,  and  of  an  anxious  desire  that  it  should 
at  length  be  made  to  cease."    He  lived  in  hopes  "  that  before  long  an  occasion  might 
arise  when  in  conjunction  with  our  ally  on  the  other  side  of  the  channel  we  shall  inter- 
fere with  effect,  and  when  an  endeavor  to  accommodate  matters  and  restore  peace 
between  the  two  great  contending  parties  will  be  attended  with  success." 

—  Lord  John  Russell  agreed  with  Lord  Brougham  that  "  it  is  a  most  horrible  war  in 
America.    There  seems  to  be  such  hatred  and  animosity  between  great  hosts  of  men, 
who  were  lately  united  under  one  government,  that  no  consideration  seems  powerful 
enough  to  induce  them  to  put  an  end  to  their  fratricidal  strife;  and  it  is  difficult  to  deal 
with  them  on  those  ordinary  principles  which  have  hitherto  governed  the  conduct  of 
civilized  mankind." 

VOL.  II.  31 


482  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Mr.  Roebuck's  disreputable  speech,  attacked  the  Judiciary  of  the 
United  States,  and  told  a  story  so  remarkable  that  it  needs  no  char- 
acterization. "American  courts,"  said  his  lordship,  uare  not  free 
from  circumstances  of  suspicion  attaching  to  them  peculiarly.  It 
might  be  that  in  old  times  judges  sat  on  the  American  Bench  who 
enjoyed  world-wide  reputation,  but  within  the  last  two  or  three  years 
the  American  tribunals  have  delivered  their  decisions  under  the  press- 
ure of  fixed  bayonets.  The  Supreme  Court  of  America  two  years 
ago  was  applied  to  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing  the  provisions  of 
the  American  Constitution ;  but  the  Judges  were  unable  to  pronounce 
the  judgment  which  their  consciences  would  have  prompted  them  to 
deliver,  because  the  soldiers  of  President  Lincoln,  appearing  at  their 
doors  in  arms,  so  terrified  them  that  they  perverted  the  law  to  suit  the 
design  of  the  Executive"  If  his  Lordship  believed  this  groundless 
calumny,  his  ignorance  concerning  the  United  States  would  be  sub- 
ject of  pity.  If  his  Lordship  did  not  believe  it,  the  just  accusation 
•against  him  is  too  serious  to  be  stated  in  these  pages. 

During  the  first  year  of  the  war  Lord  Robert  Cecil  had  so  frankly 
•expressed  his  view  of  the  situation  and  his  belief  in  the  gain  to 
England  which  would  result  from  the  destruction  of  the  American 
Union,  that  his  extraordinary  madness  may  at  least  be  said  to  have 
ihad  a  method.  He  was  already  a  prominent  member  of  the  party 
<of  which  he  is  now  the  head,  and  really  reflected  their  sentiment 
as  to  the  advantage  which  would  come  to  England  if  the  rebellion 
should  be  successful  and  the  Southern  Confederacy  established. 
They  had  witnessed  the  marvelous  growth  of  the  United  States, 
.and  had  concluded  that,  already  a  powerful  rival,  the  Republic 
would  certainly  be  dangerous  as  an  enemy.  This  view  is  discernible 
in  the  Tory  speeches  in  Parliament  and  in  the  Tory  press  of  Eng- 
land, and  was  the  motive  which  inspired  so  many  Englishmen  to 
connive  at  the  destruction  of  the  American  Union.  They  went  to 
great  length,  even  establishing  an  association  to  promote  the  cause  of 
the  rebellion,  and  to  supply  the  Confederate  Treasury  with  money. 
Lord  Robert  Cecil  was  one  of  the  Vice-Presidents  of  the  "  Southern 
Independence  Association"  and  a  subscriber  to  the  Confederate  loan, 
as  were  also  Mr.  Roebuck,  Mr.  Gregory,  and  many  other  members 
of  the  British  Parliament.1 

i  The  subscribers  to  the  Confederate  loan  in  England  were  very  numerous.  The 
following  were  among  the  most  conspicuous,  as  given  in  an  official  list. 

Right  Hon.  Lord  Wharncliffe ;  Marquis  of  Bath;  Marquis  of  Lothian;  Admiral,  Right 
Hon.  Lord  Fitzardinge;  Right  Hon.  Lord  Claud  Hamilton,  M.P.;  Right  Hon.  Viscount 


TORY  HOSTILITY  TO   THE  UNITED  STATES.  483 

The  conduct  of  the  Tories  was  not,  however,  a  surprise  to  the 
American  people.  From  the  earliest  period  of  our  National  exist- 
ence we  had  received  from  that  party  constant  demonstrations  of 
unfriendliness ;  and  where  safe  opportunity  offered,  insult  was  added. 
But  of  the  Liberal  party  Americans  had  hoped,  nay,  had  confidently 
expected,  if  not  open  demonstrations  of  sympathy,  at  least  a  neu- 
trality which  would  deprive  the  Rebel  leaders  of  any  form  of  encour- 
agement. When  the  first  shadow  of  real  danger  to  the  Union 
appeared  in  1860-61,  there  was  instinctive  gladness  among  loyal 
Americans  that  a  Liberal  Ministry  was  in  power  in  England,  com- 
posed of  men  who  would  in  no  event  permit  their  Government  to 
be  used  in  aid  of  a  rebellion  whose  first  object  was  the  destruction 
of  a  kindred  nation,  and  whose  subsequent  policy  looked  to  the 
perpetuation  of  human  slavery.  But  the  hope  proved  to  be  only 
the  delusion  of  a  day.  Americans  found  the  Palmerston  Ministry 
in  a  hostile  mood  and  ready  to  embarrass  the  Government  of  the 
Union  by  every  course  that  might  be  taken  with  safety  to  the  in- 
terests of  England ;  and  they  at  once  recognized  a  vast  increase  of 
the  force  against  which  they  must  contend* 

But  there  was  one  apprehension  which  constantly  enforced  a  lim- 
itation upon  the  action  of  the  British  Government,  and  that  was  the 
danger  that  an  open  espousal  of  the  cause  of  the  Confederacy  would 
be  the  signal  for  a  European  conflict.  Russia  was  more  than  friendly 
to  us:  Germany  had  no  interest  in  our  destruction.  Russia  was 
hostile  to  England :  Germany  was  hostile  to  France.  Active  inter- 
vention by  England  and  France,  so  much  talked  of,  might  have 

Lefford;  Right  Hon.  Lord  Teynbam;  Viscount  Goimanson;  Lord  Robert  Cecil,  M.  P.;  Lord 
Henry  F.  Thynne,  M.P.;  Sir  John  \V.  H.  Anson;  Sir  Gerald  George  Aylmer;  Sir  George 
H.  Beaumont;  Sir  Samuel  Bignold;  Sir  W.  H.  Capell  Broqk;  Sir  C.  W.  C.  de  Crispigny; 
SirT.  B.  Dancer;  Sir  Arthur  H.  Elton;  Sir  W.  H.  Fielden;  Sir  W.  Fitzherbert;  Rev. 
Sir  C.  H.  Foster;  General  Sir  J.  W.  Guise;  Sir  Robert  Harty;  Sir  William  Hartopp; 
Sir  Henry  A.  Hoare;  Sir  Henry  de  Hoghton;  Vice-Admiral  Hon.  Sir  Henry  Keppel;  Sir 
Edward  Kerrison,  M.P.;  Sir  John  Dick  Lander,  M.P.;  Sir  E.  A.  H.  Lechmere;  Sir 
Coleman  M.  O.  Loghlin,  M.P.;  Rev.  C.  R.  Lighten,  Bart.;  Lieut.-Col.  Sir  Coutts  Lind- 
say; Captain  Sir  G.  N.  Brooke  Middleton;  Sir  Edmund  Prideaux;  Sir  George  Ramsey; 
Sir  John  S.  Richardson;  Sir  George  S.  Robinson;  Sir  John  S.  Robinson;  Sir  J.  A. 
Stewart;  Sir  W.  D.  Stewart;  Sir  John  Tysser  Tyrrell;  Sir  C.  F.  Lascelles  Wraxall; 
Hon.  A.  Duncombe,  M.P.;  Colonel,  Right  Hon.  G.  C.  W.  Forester,  M.P.;  Right  Hon. 
J.  Whiteside,  M.P.;  Hon.  Percy  S.  Windham,  M.P.;  Lieut.-Col.  T.  Peers  Williams, 
M.P.;  Hon.  W.  Ashley;  Major  Hon.  W.  E.  Cochrane;  Hon.  M.  Portman;  Hon.  S.  P. 
Vereker;  Richard  Bremige,  M.P.;  W.  H.  Gregory,  M.P.;  Judge  Haliburton,  M.P. ;  John 
Hardy,  M.P.;  Beresford  A.  J.  B.  Hope,  M.P.;  J.  T.  Hope  wood,  M.P;  W.  S.  Lindsay, 
M.P.;  Mathew  Henry  Marsh,  M.P.;  Francis  Macdonough,  M.P.;  J.  A.  Roebuck,  M.P.; 
William  Scholefield,  M.P.;  William  Vansittart,  M.P.;  Arthur  Edwin  Way,  M.P. 


484  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

caused  an  earlier  dethronement  of  Napoleon  III.,  and  a  struggle  in 
the  East  which  would  have  left  England  no  military  power  to  expend 
on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic.  The  American  citizen  cannot  so  wilfully 
or  ignorantly  deceive  himself  as  to  believe  that  the  Palmerston  Gov- 
ernment, from  any  consideration  of  the  duties  of  neutrality,  from 
any  sympathy  with  the  anti-slavery  aspect  of  the  contest,  or  from  any 
ennobling  impulse  whatever,  refrained  from  formal  recognition  of  the 
Southern  Confederacy  and  the  open  espousal  of  its  cause. 

When  the  question  of  recognizing  the  Confederacy  came  before 
Parliament,  it  was  withdrawn  after  discussion  by  request  of  Mr. 
Gladstone,  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer.  He  assured  the  House 
that  "  the  main  result  of  the  American  contest  is  not,  humanly  speak- 
ing, in  any  degree  doubtful."  He  thought  "  there  never  was  a  war 
of  more  destructive,  more  deplorable,  more  hopeless  character."  The 
contest  in  his  judgment  was  "a  miserable  one."  "We  do  not,"  said 
he,  "believe  that  the  restoration  of  the  American  Union  by  force 
is  attainable.  /  believe  that  the  public  opinion  of  this  country  is  unani- 
mous upon  that  subject.  It  is  not,  therefore,  from  indifference,  it  is 
not  from  any  belief  that  this  war  is  waged  for  any  adequate  or  worthy 
object  on  the  part  of  the  North,  that  I  would  venture  to  deprecate  in 
the  strongest  terms  the  adoption  of  the  motion  of  the  honorable  and 
learned  gentleman."  The  "honorable  and  learned  gentleman "  was 
Mr.  Roebuck,  already  quoted ;  and  his  motion  was  for  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  Southern  Confederacy  as  an  independent  Nation.  The 
argument  which  Mr.  Gladstone  brought  against  it  was  in  effect  that 
the  Confederacy  was  sure  to  succeed  without  foreign  intervention. 
The  fruit  when  ripe  would  fall  of  itself,  and  hence  there  was  no 
need  of  prematurely  beating  the  tree.  The  platform  speeches  of 
Mr.  Gladstone  were  still  more  offensive  and  unjust,  but  he  need  be 
held  answerable  only  for  official  declarations. 

The  only  friends  of  the  United  States  in  England  at  that  trying 
period  were  to  be  found  among  the  "middle  classes,"  as  they  are 
termed,  and  among  the  laboring  men.  The  "nobility  and  gentry," 
the  bankers,  the  great  merchants,  the  ship-builders,  were  in  the  main 
hostile  to  the  Union,  —  wishing  and  waiting  for  the  success  of  the 
Confederacy.  The  honorable  exceptions  to  this  general  statement 
were  so  few  in  number  that  they  could  exert  little  influence  on 
public  opinion  and  still  less  upon  the  course  of  the  Ministry.  The 
philanthropy,  the  foresight,  the  insight  of  the  realm  were  found 
among  the  humbler  classes.  In  all  parts  of  the  kingdom  the  laboring 


ENGLAND  AFTER  THE  UNION  VICTORY.  485 

men  were  on  the  side  of  the  Union.  Though  they  suffered  from  a 
cotton-famine,  they  knew  by  intuition  that  the  founding  of  a  slave 
empire  in  America  would  degrade  labor  everywhere ;  they  knew  that 
the  triumph  of  the  Union  signified  the  equality  of  human  rights  and 
would  add  to  the  dignity  and  reward  of  labor.  It  would  have  been 
well  for  England's  fame  and  for  her  prosperity  if  the  statesmen  at 
Westminster  had  shared  the  wisdom  and  the  nobler  instincts  of  the 
operatives  of  Lancashire. 


When  the  National  Government  had  finally  triumphed  over  the 
rebellion  despite  the  evil  wishes  and  machinations  of  England,  Par- 
liament suddenly  ceased  to  consider  the  condition  of  the  United 
States  as  one  of  the  regular  orders  of  the  day ;  and  Lord  Palmerston, 
when  inquiry  was  addressed  to  him  whether  any  representations 
would  be  made  in  regard  to  the  arrest  of  Jefferson  Davis,  curtly 
replied  that  it  was  not  the  intention  of  the  Government  in  any 
respect  to  interfere  with  the  internal  affairs  of  the  United  States. 
The  only  expression  now  made  in  Parliament  touching  our  policies, 
was  one  of  solicitude  lest  our  Government  should  deal  with  the 
citizens  of  the  Southern  States  in  terms  of  severity.  In  June,  1865, 
two  months  after  the  war  closed,  two  noble  earls,  Russell  and  Derby, 
took  it  upon  themselves  to  advise  the  American  Government  against 
the  indulgence  of  passion  and  revenge  towards  those  who  had  engaged 
in  the  rebellion.  Earl  Derby  thought  that  "  the  triumphant  Govern- 
ment should  seek  not  to  exasperate  the  feelings  of  their  former  antag- 
onists, which  have  already  been  too  much  embittered,  but  should 
endeavor  by  deeds  of  conciliation  and  of  mercy  to  re-cement  if  pos- 
sible a  Union  so  nearly  dissolved."  Earl  Russell  expressed  the  opin- 
ion that  it  was  "  most  desirable  that  there  should  be  no  appearance 
of  passion  on  the  part  of  those  who  have  the  guidance  of  affairs  in 
the  American  Union." 

Kindly  advice  is  never  to  be  rudely  repelled ;  but  this  was  coun- 
sel which  the  American  Government  did  not  need.  The  war  had 
closed  without  the  execution  of  a  single  man  who  had  borne  arms 
against  the  Government,  without  imprisonment,  without  confiscation 
of  property,  without  even  depriving  one  rebel  of  his  franchise  as 
an  elector.  The  advice  of  the  noble  earls,  on  the  side  of  mercy, 
would  have  had  more  weight  and  influence,  had  weight  and  influ- 
ence been  needed,  if  their  own  Government,  after  every  rebellion, 


486  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

however  small  or  under  however  great  provocation,  had  not  uniformly 
followed  its  victory  by  the  gibbet,  by  imprisonment,  by  transporta- 
tion of  the  men  who  had  taken  up  arms  against  intolerable  oppression. 
If  noble  earls  of  England  had  scrutinized  English  policy,  and  advised 
their  own  Government  as  they  now  advised  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  some  heroic  lives  would  have  been  spared  to  Ireland, 
and  subjects  in  India  would  not  have  been  doomed  to  a  personal 
degradation  which  heightened  the  horror  of  impending  death. 

But  while  offensive  surveillance  of  American  affairs  ceased  in 
Parliament,  offensive  criticisms  in  the  British  Press  continued 
throughout  the  period  of  Reconstruction,  and  our  Government  was 
held  answerable  for  alleged  wrongs  and  outrages  against  a  conquered 
foe.  Especial  hostility  was  exhibited  towards  the  Republican  party, 
which  had  conducted  the  Government  through  the  war  and  led  it 
to  its  complete  triumph.  This  party  controlled  Congress  when  it 
levied  heavy  protective  duties  and  stimulated  manufacturing  in 
America  as  the  basis  of  that  financial  strength  which  proved  dur- 
ing the  civil  war  a  marvel  to  the  world.  Offended  by  the  Protective 
policy  of  the  United  States,  the  British  Press  now  denounced  the 
measures  proposed  for  the  Reconstruction  of  the  South.  No  censure 
was  too  harsh,  no  epithet  too  severe  to  apply  to  the  policy  and  to  the 
Republican  party  that  stood  sponsor  for  it.  It  might  have  surprised 
those  English  critics  to  learn  that  the  opponents  of  the  Reconstruction 
policy  at  home  could  find  nothing  to  say  of  it  so  denunciatory  or  so 
concentrated  in  bitterness  as  that  the  National  Government  was  try- 
ing to  reduce  the  Southern  States  to  the  condition  of  Ireland.  And 
thus  while  we  were  receiving  from  British  oracles  multiplied  instruc- 
tions as  to  the  manner  of  dealing  with  the  States  that  had  attempted 
to  break  from  their  allegiance,  those  States  knew  that  almost  within 
sight  of  England's  shores  there  could  be  found  the  worst  governed, 
the  most  cruelly  treated  people  within  the  circle  of  Christendom. 
The  American  mote  could  be  plainly  descried  beyond  the  broad 
ocean,  but  the  Irish  beam  was  not  visible  across  the  narrow 
channel. 

The  comparison  of  the  Southern  States  under  the  measures  of 
Reconstruction,  with  Ireland  under  the  measures  of  the  British 
Government,  naturally  suggested  by  hostile  criticism  in  the  English 
press,  is  not  without  its  useful  lessons.  The  complaint  of  discon- 
tented people  in  the  Southern  States  was  that  there  had  been  too 
great  an  expansion  of  popular  rights,  too  large  an  extension  of  the 


COMPARISON  OF  RECONSTRUCTION  SYSTEMS.  487 

elective  franchise.  But  in  Ireland,  according  to  eminent  British 
statesmen  and  historians,  the  suffering  was  from  directly  opposite 
causes.1  Self-government  of  all  the  people  was  the  rule  established 
in  the  Southern  States :  subjection  of  all  the  people  and  government 
with  the  sword  was  the  rule  established  in  Ireland.  Even  if  the 
American  Government  had  made  a  mistake  in  its  treatment  of 
the  Southern  States,  the  history  and  traditions  of  the  Republic  gave 

i  Three  eminent  British  authorities  may  be  quoted  as  to  the  mode  in  which  England 
has  governed  Ireland. 

—  Mr.  Lecky,  in  his  history  of  England  in  the  eighteenth  century,  in  reviewing  the 
condition  of  Ireland,  says,  in  1878:  "  It  would  be  difficult  in  the  whole  compass  of  history 
to  find  another  instance  in  which  such  various  and  such  powerful  agencies  concurred  to 
degrade  the  character  and  to  blast  the  prosperity  of  a  nation.    That  the  greater  part  of 
them  sprang  directly  from  the  corrupt  and  selfish  Government  of  England  is  incontest- 
able.   No  country  ever  exercised  a  more  complete  control  over  the  destinies  of  another 
than  did  England  over  those  of  Ireland  for  three-quarters  of  a  century  after  the  Revo- 
lution.   No  serious  resistance  of  any  kind  was  attempted.    The  nation  was  as  passive 
as  clay  in  the  hands  of  the  potter,  and  it  is  a  circumstance  of  peculiar  aggravation  that 
a  large  part  of  the  legislation  I  have  recounted  was  a  distinct  violation  of  a  solemn 
treaty.    The  commercial  legislation  which  ruined  Irish  industry,  the  confiscation  of 
Irish  land,  which  disorganized  the  whole  social  condition  of  the  country,  the  scandalous 
misapplication  of  patronage,  which  at  once  demoralized  and  impoverished  the  nation, 
were  all  directly  due  to  the  English  Government  and  the  English  Parliament." 

—  Mr.  Macaulay,  in  a  speech  in  the  House  of  Commons  on  the  state  of  Ireland,  in  Feb., 
1844,  said:  "  My  first  proposition,  sir,  will  scarcely  be  disputed.    Both  sides  of  the  House 
are  fully  agreed  in  thinking  that  the  condition  of  Ireland  may  well  excite  great  anxiety 
and  apprehension.    That  island,  in  extent  about  one-fourth  of  the  United  Kingdom,  in 
population  more  than  one-fourth,  superior  probably  in  natural  fertility  to  any  area  of 
equal  size  in  Europe,  possessed  of  natural  facilities  for  trade  such  as  can  nowhere  else 
be  found  in  an  equal  extent  of  coast,  an  inexhaustible  nursery  of  gallant  soldiers,  a 
country  far  more  important  to  the  prosperity,  the  strength,  the  dignity  of  this  great 
empire  than  all  our  distant  dependencies  together,  than  the  Canadas  and  the  West 
Indies  added  to  Southern  Africa,  to  Australasia,  to  Ceylon,  and  to  the  vast  dominions  of 
the  Moguls,  —  that  island,  sir,  is  acknowledged  by  all  to  be  so  ill  affected  and  so  turbu- 
lent that  it  must,  in  any  estimate  of  our  power,  be  not  added,  but  deducted.    You  admit 
that  you  govern  that  island,  not  as  you  govern  England  and  Scotland,  but  as  you  govern 
your  new  conquests  in  Scinde;  not  by  means  of  the  respect  which  the  people  feel  for  the 
laws,  but  by  means  of  bayonets,  of  artillery,  of  entrenched  camps." 

—  Edmund  Burke,  writing  to  Sir  Hercules  Langrishe,  in  1792,  said-:  "  The  original  scheme 
was  never  deviated  from  for  a  single  hour.    Unheard-of  confiscations  were  made  in  the 
Northern  parts,  upon  grounds  of  plots  and  conspiracies  never  proved  upon  their  supposed 
authors.    The  war  of  chicane  succeeded  to  the  war  of  arms  and  of  hostile  statutes;  and 
a  regular  series  of  operations  were  carried  on,  particularly  from  Chichester's  time,  in 
the  ordinary  courts  of  justice  and  by  special  commissions  and  inquisitions  :  First  under 
pretense  of  tenures,  and  then  of  titles  in  the  Crown,  for  the  purpose  of  the  total  extir- 
pation of  the  interests  of  the  natives  in  their  own  soil,  until  this  species  of  subtle  ravage 
being  carried  to  the  last  excess  of  oppression  and  insolence  under  Lord  Strafford,  it 
kindled  the  flames  of  that  rebellion  which  broke  out  in  1641.    By  the  issue  of  that  war, 
by  the  turn  which  the  Earl  of  Clarendon  gave  to  things  at  the  Restoration,  and  by  the 
total  reduction  of  the  kingdom  of  Ireland  in  1691,  the  ruin  of  the  native  Irish,  and  in  a 
great  measure  too  of  the  first  races  of  the  English,  was  completely  accomplished." 


488  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

ample  guarantee  that  wrong  steps  would  be  speedily  retraced,  that 
all  grievances  would  be  thoroughly  redressed ;  whereas  the  com- 
plaints of  Ireland  have  remained  unredressed  for  centuries. 

There  is  no  parallel  among  civilized  nations  to  the  prolonged 
discontent  among  the  Irish  people.  A  race  gifted  with  many  of  the 
noblest  qualities  of  humanity,  strong  in  intellect  and  quick  in  appre- 
hension, could  not  for  centuries  complain  of  grievances  if  they  did 
not  exist,  and  the  grievances  could  not  exist  for  centuries  without 
serious  reproach  to  the  British  Government.  To  the  lasting  honor 
of  American  statesmanship,  Southern  grievances  were  not  allowed 
by  neglect  or  arrogance  to  grow  and  become  chronic  after  the  civil 
war  had  closed.  The  one  safeguard  against  an  evil  so  great  was  the 
restoration  of  self-government  to  the  people  who  had  rebelled,  the 
broadening  of  the  elective  franchise,  the  abolition  of  caste  and  privi- 
lege. If  Englishmen  had  studied  the  Reconstruction  policy  instead  of 
deriding  it,  they  might  have  learned  that  the  American  Government 
accomplished  for  the  South  in  four  years  what  their  own  Government 
has  failed  to  accomplish  for  Ireland  through  ten  generations. 


The  Government  of  the  United  States  had  steadily  protested 
during  the  continuance  of  the  civil  war  against  the  unfriendly  and 
unlawful  course  of  England,  and  it  was  determined  that  compensa- 
tion should  be  demanded  upon  the  return  of  Peace.  Mr.  Adams, 
under  instructions  from  Secretary  Seward,  had  presented  and  ably 
argued  the  American  case.  He  proposed  a  friendly  arbitration  of  the 
Alabama  claims,  but  was  met  by  a  flat  refusal  from  Earl  Russell,  who 
declined  on  the  part  of  the  British  Government  either  to  make  repar- 
ation or  compensation,  or  permit  a  reference  to  any  foreign  State 
friendly  to  both  parties. 

In  the  autumn  succeeding  the  close  of  the  war,  Mr.  Seward  noti- 
fied the  British  Government  that  no  further  effort  would  be  made 
for  arbitration,  and  in  the  following  August  (1866)  he  transmitted 
a  list  of  individual  claims  based  upon  the  destruction  caused  by  the 
Alabama.  Lord  Stanley  (the  present  Earl  of  Derby)  had  succeeded 
Earl  Russell  in  the  Foreign  Office,  and  declined  to  recognize  the 
claims  of  this  Government  in  as  decisive  a  tone  as  that  employed  by 
Earl  Russell.  Of  opposite  parties,  Earl  Russell  and  Lord  Stanley 
were  supposed  to  represent  the  aggregate,  if  not  indeed  the  unani- 


THE  JOHNSON-CLARENDON  TREATY.  489 

mous,  public  opinion  of  England ;  so  that  the  refusal  to  accede  to 
the  demands  of  the  United  States  was  popularly  accepted  as  con- 
clusive. Mr.  Adams  retired  from  his  mission,  in  which  his  services 
to  the  country  had  been  zealous  and  useful,  without  effecting  the 
negotiations  which  he  had  urged  upon  the  attention  of  the  British 
Government.  He  took  his  formal  leave  in  May,  1868,  and  was  suc- 
ceeded the  following  month  by  Mr.  Reverdy  Johnson. 

The  new  Minister  carried  with  him  the  respect  and  confidence 
of  his  fellow-citizens.  Appointed  directly  after  the  Impeachment 
trial  of  President  Johnson,  he  was  among  the  few  statesmen  of  the 
Democratic  party  who  could  have  secured  the  ready  confirmation  of 
the  Senate  for  a  mission  which  demanded  in  its  incumbent  a  talent 
for  diplomacy  and  a  thorough  knowledge  of  International  law.  The 
only  objection  seriously  mentioned  at  the  time  against  Mr.  Johnson's 
appointment,  was  the  fact  that  he  was  in  his  seventy-third  year,  and 
might  not  therefore  be  equal  to  the  exacting  duties  which  his  mis- 
sion involved. 

Before  Mr.  Johnson  could  open  his  negotiation,  the  British  Min- 
istry was  changed,  —  Mr.  Disraeli  giving  way  to  Mr.  Gladstone  as 
Premier,  and  Lord  Stanley  being  succeeded  by  Lord  Clarendon  as 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs.  With  the  latter  Mr.  Johnson  very 
promptly  agreed  upon  a  treaty,  which  reached  the  United  States  in 
the  month  of  February,  1869.  It  purported  to  be  a  settlement 
of  the  questions  in  dispute  between  the  two  countries.  There  was 
great  curiosity  to  learn  its  provisions.  Much  was  hoped  from  it, 
because  it  was  known  to  have  been  approved  by  Mr.  Seward  at  the 
various  stages  of  the  negotiation,  —  a  constant  and  confidential  cor- 
respondence having  been  maintained  by  cable,  between  the  State 
Department  and  the  American  Legation  in  London,  on  every  phase 
of  the  treaty. 

Mr.  Seward  had  earned  approbation  so  hearty  and  general  by  his 
diplomatic  correspondence  with  Great  Britain  during  the  war  and 
in  the  years  immediately  succeeding,  that  no  one  was  prepared  for 
the  disappointment  and  chagrin  experienced  in  the  United  States 
when  the  Johnson-Clarendon  treaty  was  made  public.  It  gave 
almost  personal  offense  to  the  mass  of  people  in  the  loyal  States. 
It  overlooked,  and  yet  by  cunning  phrase  condoned,  every  unfriendly 
act  of  England  during  our  civil  war.  It  affected  to  class  the  injuries 
inflicted  upon  the  Nation  as  mere  private  claims,  to  be  offset  by 
private  claims  of  British  subjects,  —  the  whole  to  be  referred  to  a  joint 


490  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

commission,  after  the  ordinary  and  constantly  recurring  method  of 
adjusting  claims  of  private  individuals  that  may  have  become  matter 
of  diplomatic  interposition. 

The  preamble  to  the  treaty  established  its  character  and  proved 
its  utter  inadequacy  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  United  States.  It 
was  in  these  words:  "Whereas  claims  have  at  various  times  since 
the  exchange  of  the  ratifications  of  the  convention  between  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States  of  America,  signed  at  London  on  the 
8th  of  February,  1853,  been  made  upon  the  Government  of  her 
Britannic  Majesty  on  the  part  of  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and 
upon  the  Government  of  the  United  States  on  the  part  of  subjects 
of  her  Britannic  Majesty ;  and  whereas  some  of  such  claims  are  still 
pending  and  remain  unsettled,  her  Majesty  the  Queen  of  the  United 
Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  and  the  President  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  being  of  opinion  that  a  speedy  and 
equitable  settlement  of  all  such  claims  will  contribute  much  to  the 
maintenance  of  the  friendly  feelings  which  subsist  between  the  two 
countries,  have  resolved  to  make  arrangements  for  that  purpose  by 
means  of  a  convention." 

Among  the  first  provisions  of  the  treaty  was  a  declaration  that 
the  result  of  the  proceedings  of  the  commission  thus  to  be  provided 
for,  should  be  considered  as  "a  full  and  final  settlement  of  every 
claim  upon  either  government  arising  out  of  any  transaction  of  a 
date  prior  to  the  exchange  of  ratifications ; "  and  all  claims  thereafter 
were  to  be  "  considered  and  treated  as  finally  settled  and  barred,  and 
thenceforth  inadmissible."  For  eight  years  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  had  been  protesting  against  the  unfriendly  course  of 
Great  Britain,  against  her  premature  recognition  of  the  Confederate 
States  as  belligerents,  against  her  special  concession  of  ocean  belliger- 
ency, against  her  making  the  dockyards  and  arsenals  on  her  own 
soil  the  dockyards  and  arsenals  of  the  Confederacy,  against  her 
wilful  depredation  upon  the  commerce  of  the  United  States,  against 
the  destruction  of  property  belonging  to  American  citizens  by  her 
agency  and  her  fault.  And  now  Mr.  Johnson  and  Lord  Clarendon 
had  concluded  a  treaty  which  practically  admitted  that  the  com- 
plaints of  the  United  States,  as  a  government,  against  the  conduct 
of  Great  Britain,  as  a  government,  had  been  mere  rant  and  bravado 
on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  and  were  not  to  be  insisted  on 
before  any  International  tribunal,  but  to  be  merged  in  an  ordinary 
claims  convention,  by  whose  award  a  certain  amount  in  dollars  and 


REJECTION  OF  JOHNSOX-CLARENDON  TREATY.  491 

cents  might  be  paid  to  American  claimants  and  a  certain  amount  in 
pounds,  shillings  and  pence  might  be  paid  to  British  claimants.  The 
text  of  the  treaty  did  not  indicate  in  any  manner  whatever  that 
either  nation  was  more  at  fault  than  the  other  touching  the  matters 
to  be  arbitrated. 

The  treaty  had  short  life  in  the  Senate.  The  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations,  after  examination  of  its  provisions,  reported  that 
it  should  "be  rejected."  Mr.  Sumner,  who  made  the  report,  said 
it  was  the  first  time  since  he  had  entered  the  Senate  that  such  a 
report  had  been  made  concerning  any  treaty.  Amendments,  he 
said,  were  sometimes  suggested,  and  sometimes  a  treaty  had  been 
reported  without  any  recommendation ;  but  the  hostility  to  the 
entire  spirit  and  to  every  detail  of  the  Johnson-Clarendon  treaty 
was  so  intense  that  the  Committee  had  made  the  positive  recommen- 
dation that  it  be  rejected.  This  action  was  taken  in  the  month  of 
April,  1869,  a  few  weeks  after  President  Grant  had  entered  upon 
his  office.  It  was  accompanied  by  a  speech  from  Mr.  Sumner,  made 
in  Executive  session,  but  by  direction  of  the  Senate  given  to  the 
public,  in  which  the  reasons  for  the  action  of  the  Senate  were  stated 
with  great  directness,  precision  and  force. 

After  enumerating  the  extent  of  our  losses,  National  and  indi- 
vidual, direct  and  indirect,  Mr.  Sumner  said :  "  If  the  case  against 
England  is  strong,  and  if  our  claims  are  unprecedented  in  magni- 
tude, it  is  only  because  the  conduct  of  that  power  at  a  trying  period 
was  most  unfriendly,  and  the  injurious  consequences  of  this  conduct 
were  on  a  scale  corresponding  to  the  theatre  of  action.  Life  and 
property  were  both  swallowed  up,  leaving  behind  a  deep-seated  sense 
of  enormous  wrong,  as  yet  unatoned  and  even  unacknowledged, 
which  is  one  of  the  chief  factors  in  the  problem  now  presented  to 
the  statesmen  of  both  countries.  ...  The  truth  must  be  told,  not  in 
anger,  but  in  sadness.  England  has  done  to  the  United  States  an 
injury  most  difficult  to  measure.  Considering  when  it  was  done  and 
in  what  complicity,  it  is  most  unaccountable.  At  a  great  epoch  of 
history,  not  less  momentous  than  that  of  the  French  Revolution  or 
that  of  the  Reformation,  when  civilization  was  fighting  a  last  battle 
with  slavery,  England  gave  her  influence,  her  material  resources,  to 
the  wicked  cause,  and  flung  a  sword  into  the  scale  with  slavery." 

President  Grant  was  in  full  sympathy  with  the  Senate  in  its 
prompt  rejection  of  the  Johnson-Clarendon  treaty,  and  in  his  annual 
message  to  Congress  in  the  ensuing  December  (1869)  he  expressed 


492  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

his  entire  dissent  from  its  provisions.1  He  thought  the  rejection  of 
the  treaty  was  "  followed  by  a  state  of  public  opinion  on  both  sides 
not  favorable  to  an  immediate  attempt  at  renewed  negotiation,"  and 
expressed  "  the  hope  that  the  time  will  soon  arrive  when  the  two 
Governments  can  approach  the  solution  of  this  momentous  question, 
with  an  appreciation  of  what  is  due  to  the  rights,  dignity,  and  honor 
of  each." 

The  rejection  of  the  Johnson-Clarendon  treaty  was  formally 
announced  to  the  British  Government  through  Mr.  Motley,  who 
succeeded  Mr.  Johnson  as  Minister  at  London.  Mr.  Fish,  in 
his  letter  of  instructions,  suggested  to  Mr.  Motley  the  propriety  of 
suspending  negotiations  for  the  present  on  the  whole  question.  At 
the  same  time  he  committed  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
anew  to  the  maintenance  of  the  claim  for  National  damages,  as  well 
as  for  the  losses  of  individual  citizens.  And  thus  the  matter  was 
allowed  to  rest.  The  United  States,  though  deeply  aggrieved,  did 
not  desire  to  urge  the  negotiation  in  a  spirit  of  hostility  that  implied 
readiness  to  go  to  war  upon  the  issue,  and  simply  trusted  that  a 

1  The  following  is  the  language  of  President  Grant  in  his  message:  — 

"  Toward  the  close  of  the  last  Administration  a  convention  was  signed  at  London 
for  the  settlement  of  all  outstanding  claims  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States, 
which  failed  to  receive  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  to  its  ratification.  The  time 
and  the  circumstances  attending  the  negotiation  of  that  treaty  were  unfavorable  to  its 
acceptance  by  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  its  provisions  were  wholly  inadequate 
for  the  settlement  of  the  grave  wrongs  that  had  been  sustained  by  this  Government  as 
well  as  by  its  citizens. 

"  The  injuries  resulting  to  the  United  States  by  reason  of  the  course  adopted  by  Great 
Britain  during  our  late  civil  war  in  the  increased  rates  of  insurance  ;  in  the  diminution 
of  exports  and  imports,  and  other  obstructions  to  domestic  industry  and  production;  in 
its  effect  upon  the  foreign  commerce  of  the  country;  in  the  decrease  and  transfer  to 
Great  Britain  of  our  commercial  marine;  in  the  prolongation  of  the  war  and  the  increased 
cost,  both  in  treasure  and  in  lives,  of  its  suppression,  could  not  be  adjusted  and  satisfied 
as  ordinary  commercial  claims,  which  continually  arise  between  commercial  nations. 
And  yet  the  convention  treated  them  simply  as  such  ordinary  claims,  from  which  they 
differ  more  widely  in  the  gravity  of  their  character  than  in  the  magnitude  of  their 
amount,  great  even  as  is  that  difference.  Not  a  word  was  found  in  the  treaty,' and  not  an 
inference  could  be  drawn  from  it,  to  remove  the  sense  of  the  unfriendliness  of  the  course 
of  Great  Britain  in  our  struggle  for  existence,  which  has  so  deeply  and  universally 
impressed  itself  upon  the  people  of  this  country. 

"  Believing  that  a  convention  thus  misconceived  in  its  scope  and  inadequate  in  its 
provisions  would  not  have  produced  the  hearty,  cordial  settlement  of  pending  questions, 
which  alone  is  consistent  with  the  relations  which  I  desire  to  have  firmly  established 
between  the  United  States 'and  Great  Britain,  I  regarded  the  action  of  the  Senate  in 
rejecting  the  treaty  to  have  been  wisely  taken  in  the  interest  of  peace,  and  as  a  necessary 
step  in  the  direction  of  a  perfect  and  cordial  friendship  between  the  two  countries.  A 
sensitive  people  conscious  of  their  power  are  more  at  ease  under  a  great  wrong  wholly 
unatoned  than  under  the  restraint  of  a  settlement  which  satisfies  neither  their  ideas  of 
justice  nor  their  grave  sense  of  the  grievance  they  have  sustained." 


PRESIDENT  GRANT'S  PROPOSITION.  493 

returning  sense  of  justice  in  the  British  Government  would  lead  to 
a  renewal  of  negotiations  and  a  friendly  adjustment  of  all  differences 
between  the  two  Governments. 

A  year  went  by  and  nothing  was  done.  The  English  Govern- 
ment was  not  disposed  to  go  a  step  beyond  the  provisions  of  the 
Johnson-Clarendon  treaty,  and  had  indeed  been  somewhat  offended 
by  the  promptness  with  which  the  Senate  had  rejected  that  agreement, 
especially  by  the  emphasis  which  the  speech  of  Mr.  Sumner  had 
given  to  the  Senate's  action.  President  Grant  remained  altogether 
patient  and  composed  —  feeling  that  postponement  could  not  be  a 
loss  to  the  American  Government,  and  would  certainly  prove  no  gain 
to  the  British  Government.  In  his  annual  message  to  Congress  of 
December,  1870,  he  assumed  a  position  which  proved  embarrassing  to 
England.  He  recognized  the  fact  that  "  the  Cabinet  at  London  does 
not  appear  willing  to  concede  that  her  Majesty's  Government  was 
guilty  of  any  negligence,  or  did  or  permitted  any  act  of  which  the 
United  States  has  just  cause  of  complaint ;  "  and  he  re-asserted  with 
great  deliberation  and  emphasis  that  "  our  firm  and  unalterable  convic- 
tions are  directly  the  reverse."  The  President  therefore  recommended 
that  Congress  should  "  authorize  the  appointment  of  a  commission  to 
take  proof  of  the  amounts  and  the  ownership  of  these  several  claims, 
on  notice  to  the  representative  of  her  Majesty  at  Washington,  and  that 
authority  be  given  for  the  settlement  of  these  claims  by  the  United 
States,  so  that  the  Government  shall  have  the  ownership  of  the  pri- 
vate claims,  as  well  as  the  responsible  control  of  all  the  demands 
against  Great  Britain." 

President  Grant  was  evidently  resolved  that  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  should  not  allow  the  pressing  need  of  private 
claimants  to  operate  in  any  degree  upon  public  opinion  in  the  United 
States,  so  as  to  create  a  demand  for  settlement  with  England  on  any 
basis  below  that  which  National  dignity  required.  He  felt  assured 
that  Congress  would  respond  favorably  to  his  recommendation,  and 
that  with  the  individual  claimants  satisfied  our  Government  could 
afford  to  wait  the  course  of  events.  This  position  convinced  the 
British  Government  that  the  President  intended  to  raise  the  ques- 
tion in  all  its  phases  above  the  grade  of  private  claims,  and  to  make 
it  purely  an  international  affair.  No  more  effective  step  could  have 
been  taken ;  and  the  President  and  his  adviser,  Secretary  Fish,  are 
entitled  to  the  highest  credit  for  thus  elevating  the  character  of  the 
issue  —  an  issue  made  all  the  more  impressive  from  the  quiet  man- 


494  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

ner  in  which  it  was  presented,  and  from  the  characteristic  coolness 
and  determination  of  the  Chief  Magistrate  who  stood  behind  it. 

Meanwhile  the  sanguinary  war  between  Germany  and  France  had 
broken  out,  and  was  still  flagrant  when  President  Grant's  recom, 
mendation  for  paying  the  Alabama  claims  from  the  National  Treasury 
was  sent  to  Congress.  Though  the  foreign  conflict  terminated  with- 
out involving  other  nations,  it  forcibly  reminded  England  of  the 
situation  in  which  she  might  be  placed  if  she  should  be  drawn  into 
a  European  war,  the  United  States  being  a  neutral  power.  It  would 
certainly  be  an  unjust  imputation  upon  the  magnanimity  and  upon 
the  courage  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  to  represent  them 
as  waiting  for  an  opportunity  to  inflict  harm  upon  England  for 
her  conduct  towards  this  Government  in  the  hour  of  its  calamity 
and  its  distress.  It  was  not  by  indirection,  or  by  stealthy  blows,  or 
by  secret  connivance  with  enemies,  or  by  violations  of  international 
justice,  that  the  United  States  would  ever  have  sought  to  avenge 
herself  on  England  for  the  wrongs  she  had  received.  If  there  had 
been  a  disposition  among  the  American  people  impelling  them  to 
that  course,  it  would  assuredly  have  impelled  them  much  farther. 

But  England  was  evidently  apprehensive  that  if  she  should 
become  involved  in  war,  the  United  States  would,  as  a  neutral  power, 
follow  the  precedent  which  the  English  Government  had  set  in  the 
war  of  the  rebellion,  and  in  this  way  inflict  almost  irreparable  damage 
upon  British  shipping  and  British  commerce.  Piratical  Alabamas 
might  escape  from  the  harbors  and  rivers  of  the  United  States, 
as  easily  as  they  had  escaped  from  the  harbors  and  rivers  of  Eng- 
land ;  and  she  might  well  fear  that  if  a  period  of  calamity  should 
come  to  her,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  with  the  neglect  or 
connivance  of  their  Government,  would  be  as  quick  to  add  to  her 
distress  and  embarrassment  as  the  people  of  England,  with  the  neg- 
lect or  connivance  of  their  Government,  had  added  to  the  distress 
and  embarrassment  of  the  United  States.  Conscience  does  make 
cowards  of  us  all ;  and  Great  Britain,  foreseeing  the  possibility  of 
being  herself  engaged  in  a  European  war,  was  in  a  position  to  dread 
lest  her  ill  intentions  and  her  misdeeds  in  the  time  of  our  civil 
struggle  should  return  to  plague  her. 

These  facts  and  apprehensions  seem  to  have  wrought  a  great 
change  in  the  disposition  of  the  British  Government,  and  led  them  to 
seek  a  re-opening  of  the  negotiation.  In  an  apparently  unofficial  way 
Sir  John  Rose,  a  London  banker  (associated  in  business  with  Honor- 


SECRET  MISSION  OF  SIR  JOHN  ROSE.  495 

able  L.  P.  Morton,  a  well-known  banker  and  distinguished  citizen  of 
New  York),  came  to  this  country  on  a  secret  mission  early  in  January, 
1871.  President  Grant's  message  had  made  a  profound  impression  in 
London,  the  Franco-Prussian  war  had  not  yet  ended,  and  Her  Majesty's 
Ministers  had  reason  to  fear  trouble  with  the  Russian  Government. 
Sir  John's  duty  was  to  ascertain  in  an  informal  way  the  feeling  of 
the  American  Government  in  regard  to  pending  controversies  be- 
tween the  two  countries.  He  showed  himself  as  clever  in  diplomacy 
as  he  was  in  finance,  and  important  results  followed  in  an  incredibly 
short  space  of  time.  An  understanding  was  reached,  which  on  the 
surface  expressed  itself  in  a  seemingly  casual  letter  from  Sir 
Edward  Thornton  to  Secretary  Fish  of  the  26th  of  January,  1871, 
communicating  certain  instructions  from  Lord  Granville  in  regard 
to  a  better  adjustment  of  the  fishery  question  and  all  other  matters 
affecting  the  relations  of  the  United  States  to  the  British  North- 
American  possessions.  To  settle  this  question  Sir  Edward  was 
authorized  by  his  Government  to  propose  the  creation  of  a  Joint 
High  Commission,  the  members  to  be  named  by  each  Government, 
which  should  meet  in  Washington  and  discuss  the  question  of  the 
fisheries  and  the  relations  of  the  United  States  to  her  Majesty's 
possessions  in  North  America. 

Mr.  Fish  replied  in  a  tone  which  indicated  that  Sir  Edward 
was  really  serious  in  his  proposition  to  organize  so  imposing 
a  tribunal  to  discuss  the  fishery  question.  He  informed  Sir  Ed- 
ward that  "  in  the  opinion  of  the  President  the  removal  of 
differences  which  arose  during  the  rebellion  in  the  United  States, 
and  which  have  existed  since  then,  growing  out  of  the  acts  com- 
mitted by  several  vessels,  which  have  given  rise  to  the  claims  gen- 
erally known  as  the  Alabama  Claims,  will  also  be  essential  to  the 
restoration  of  cordial  and  amicable  relations  between  the  two  Gov- 
ernments." Sir  Edward  waited  just  long  enough  to  hear  from  Lord 
Granville  by  cable,  and  on  the  day  after  the  receipt  of  Mr.  Fish's 
note  assented  in  writing  to  his  suggestion,  adding  a  request  that 
"  all  other  claims  of  the  citizens  of  either  country,  arising  out  of  the 
acts  committed  during  the  recent  civil  war  in  the  United  States, 
might  be  taken  into  consideration  by  the  Commission."  To  this 
Mr.  Fish  readily  assented  in  turn. 

The  question  which  for  six  years  had  been  treated  with  easy 
indifference  if  not  with  contempt  by  the  British  Foreign  Office  had 
in  a  day  become  exigent  and  urgent,  and  the  diplomatic  details 


496  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

which  ordinarily  would  have  required  months  to  adjust  were  now 
settled  by  cable  in  an  hour.  The  first  proposal  for  a  Joint  High 
Commission  was  made  by  Sir  Edward  Thornton  on  the  26th  of  Jan- 
uary, 1871  ;  and  the  course  of  events  was  so  rapid  that  in  twenty- 
seven  days  thereafter  the  British  Commissioners  landed  in  New  York 
en  route  to  Washington.  They  sailed  without  their  commissions,  which 
were  signed  by  the  Queen  at  the  castle  of  Windsor  on  the  sixteenth 
day  of  February  and  forwarded  to  them  by  special  messenger.  This 
was  extraordinary  and  almost  undignified  haste,  altogether  unusual 
with  Plenipotentiaries  of  Great  Britain.  It  was  laughingly  said  at 
the  time  that  the  Commissioners  were  dispatched  from  London  "  so 
hurriedly  that  they  came  with  portmanteaus,  leaving  their  servants 
behind  to  pack  their  trunks  and  follow."  For  this  change  of  view 
in  the  British  Cabinet  and  this  courier-like  speed  among  British 
diplomatists,  there  was  a  double  cause,  —  the  warning  of  the  Franco- 
Prussian  war,  and  President  Grant's  proposition  to  pay  the  Alabama 
Claims  from  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States — and  wait.  Assuredly 
the  President  did  not  wait  long ! 


The  gentlemen  constituting  the  Joint  High  Commission  were 
well  known  in  their  respective  countries,  and  enjoyed  the  fullest 
measure  of  public  confidence,  thus  insuring  in  advance  the  accept- 
ance of  whatever  settlement  they  might  agree  upon.1  The  result 
of  their  deliberations  was  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  concluded  on 
the  eighth  day  of  May,  1871.  It  took  cognizance  of  the  four  ques- 
tions at  issue  between  the  two  countries,  and  provided  for  the 
settlement  of  each.  The  Alabama  claims  were  to  be  adjusted  by  a 
commission  to  meet  at  Geneva,  in  Switzerland ;  all  other  claims  for 
loss  or  damage  of  any  kind,  between  1861  and  1865,  by  subjects  of 
Great  Britain  or  citizens  of  the  United  States,  were  to  be  adjusted 

i  The  Commissioners  on  behalf  of  Great  Britain  were  the  Earl  de  Grey  and  Ripon, 
President  of  the  Queen's  Counsel ;  Sir  Stafford  Northcote,  late  Chancellor  of  the  Ex- 
chequer  ;  Sir  Edward  Thornton,  British  Minister  at  Washington;  Sir  John  Macdonald, 
Premier  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada;  and  Montague  Bernard,  Professor  of  International 
Law  in  the  university  of  Oxford.  On  the  part  of  the  United  States  the  Commissioners 
were  Hamilton  Fish,  Secretary  of  State;  Robert  C.  Schenck,  who  had  just  been  appointed 
Minister  to  Great  Britain;  Samuel  Nelson,  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court;  E.  Rockwood 
Hoar,  late  Attorney-General ;  and  George  H.  Williams,  late  senator  of  the  United  States 
from  Oregon.  —  The  Secretaries  were  Lord  Tenterden,  under  secretary  of  the  British  For- 
eign Office,  and  J.  C.  Bancroft  Davis,  Assistant  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States 


ADJUSTMENT  OF  ALABAMA  CLAIMS.  497 

by  a  commission  to  meet  in  Washington ;  the  San  Juan  question  was 
to  be  referred  for  settlement  to  the  Emperor  of  Germany,  as  Umpire ; 
and  the  dispute  in  regard  to  the  fisheries  was  to  be  settled  by  a  com- 
mission to  meet  at  Halifax,  Nova  Scotia. 

The  basis  for  adjusting  the  Alabama  claims  was  promptly  agreed 
upon.  This  question  stood  in  the  forefront  of  the  treaty,  taking  its 
proper  rank  as  the  principal  dispute  between  the  two  countries. 
Her  Britannic  Majesty  had  authorized  her  High  Commissioners  and 
plenipotentiaries  "  to  express  in  a  friendly  spirit  the  regret  felt  by 
Her  Majesty's  Government  for  the  escape,  under  whatever  circum- 
stances, of  the  Alabama  and  other  vessels  from  British  ports,  and  for 
the  depredations  committed  by  those  vessels."  And  with  the  expres- 
sion of  this  regret,  Her  Britannic  Majesty  agreed,  through  her  Com- 
missioners, that  all  the  claims  growing  out  of  acts  committed  by  the 
aforesaid  vessels,  and  generally  known  as  the  Alabama  claims,  "shall 
be  referred  to  a  tribunal  of  arbitration,  to  be  composed  of  five  arbi- 
trators, —  one  to  be  named  by  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
one  by  the  Queen  of  England,  one  by  the  King  of  Italy,  one  by  the 
President  of  the  Swiss  Confederation,  and  one  by  the  Emperor  of 
Brazil."  This  was  a  great  step  beyond  the  Johnson-Clarendon  treaty, 
which  did  not  in  any  way  concede  the  responsibility  of  England  to  the 
Government  of  the  United  States.  It  was  a  still  greater  step  beyond 
the  flat  refusal,  first  of  Earl  Russell  and  then  of  Lord  Stanley,  to  refer 
the  claims  to  the  ruler  of  a  friendly  state. 

But  England  was  willing  to  go  still  farther.  She  agreed  that  "in 
deciding  the  matters  submitted  to  the  arbitrators,  they  shall  be  gov- 
erned by  three  rules,  which  are  agreed  upon  by  the  high  contracting 
parties  as  rules  to  be  taken  as  applicable  to  the  case ;  and  by  such 
principles  of  International  Law,  not  inconsistent  therewith,  as  the 
Arbitrators  shall  determine  to  have  been  applicable  to  the  case."1 

1  The  following  are  the  three  rules  agreed  upon  :  — 

"  A  neutral  Government  is  bound  — 

"  First,  to  use  due  diligence  to  prevent  the  fitting  out,  arming,  or  equipping,  within 
its  jurisdiction,  of  any  vessel  which  it  has  reasonable  ground  to  believe  is  intended  to 
cruise  or  to  carry  on  war  against  a  power  with  which  it  is  at  peace;  and  also  to  use  like 
diligence  to  prevent  the  departure  from  its  jurisdiction  of  any  vessel  intended  to  cruise 
or  carry  on  war  as  above,  such  vessel  having  been  specially  adapted,  in  whole  or  in  part, 
within  such  jurisdiction,  to  warlike  use. 

"Secondly,  not  to  permit  or  suffer  either  belligerent  to  make  use  of  its  ports  or 
waters  as  the  base  of  naval  operations  against  the  other,  or  for  the  purpose  of  the  renewal 
or  augmentation  of  military  supplies  or  arms,  or  the  recruitment  of  men. 

"  Thirdly,  to  exercise  due  diligence  in  its  own  ports  and  waters,  and,  as  to  all  persons 
within  its  jurisdiction,  to  prevent  any  violation  of  the  foregoing  obligations  and  duties." 
VOL.  II.  32 


498  TWENTY  YEAKS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Her  Britannic  Majesty  had  commanded  her  High  Commissioners  to 
declare  that  "  Her  Majesty's  Government  cannot  assent  to  these  rules 
as  a  statement  of  the  principles  of  International  Law  which  were  in 
force  at  the  time  when  the  claims  arose ;  but  that  Her  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment, in  order  to  evince  its  desire  of  strengthening  the  friendly 
relations  between  the  two  countries,  and  of  making  satisfactory  pro- 
vision for  the  future,  agrees  that  in  deciding  the  questions  between 
the  two  countries  arising  out  of  those  claims,  the  Arbitrators  shall 
assume  that  Her  Majesty's  Government  had  undertaken  to  act  upon 
the  principles  set  forth  in  these  rules." 

Her  Majesty's  Government  had  needlessly  lost  six  years  in  coming 
to  a  settlement  which  was  entirely  satisfactory  to  the  Government 
and  people  of  the  United  States.  Indeed  a  settlement  at  the  close 
of  the  war  could  have  been  made  with  even  less  concession  on  the 
part  of  Great  Britain,  and  perhaps  if  it  had  been  longer  postponed 
the  demands  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  might  Have 
increased.  Wars  have  grown  out  of  less  aggravation  and  dispute 
between  nations ;  but  the  Government  of  the  United  States  had 
never  anticipated  such  a  result  as  possible,  and  felt  assured  that  in 
the  end  Great  Britain  would  not  refuse  to  make  the  reparation 
honorably  due. 

The  Arbitrators  met  in  the  ensuing  December  at  Geneva,  Switzer- 
land, and  after  a  hearing  of  nine  months  agreed  upon  an  award, 
made  public  on  the  14th  of  September,  1872.  The  judgment  was 
that  "the  sum  of  $15,500,000  in  gold  be  paid  by  Great  Britain  to 
the  United  States  for  the  satisfaction  of  all  the  claims  referred  to  the 
consideration  of  the  tribunal."  Sir  Alexander  Cockburn,  the  British 
Commissioner,  dissented  in  a  somewhat  ungracious  manner  from  the 
judgment  of  his  associates ;  but  as  the  majority  had  been  specially 
empowered  to  make  an  award,  the  refusal  of  England's  representa- 
tive to  join  in  it  did  not  in  the  least  degree  affect  its  validity.1 

There  is  some  question  as  to  whether  the  British  Government  has 
discharged  one  of  the  obligations  which  it  assumed  under  the  treaty. 
After  the  three  rules  had  been  agreed  upon,  a  clause  of  the  treaty 
declared  that  "the  high  contracting  parties  agree  to  observe  these 

1  The  arbitrators  who  met  at  Geneva  were  as  follows :  — 

Great  Britain  appointed  Sir  Alexander  Cockburn;  the  United  States  appointed  Mr. 
Charles  Francis  Adams;  the  King  of  Italy  named  Count  Frederick  Sclopis;  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Swiss  Confederation  named  Mr.  Jacob  Staempfli;  the  Emperor  of  Brazil 
named  the  Baron  d'ltajuba.  Mr.  J.  C.  Bancroft  Davis  was  appointed  Agent  of  the 
United  States;  and  Lord  Tenterden  was  the  Agent  of  Great  Britain. 


ADJUSTMENT  OF  OTHER  CLAIMS.  499 

rules  as  between  themselves  in  future,  and  to  bring  them  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  other  ma'ritime  powers  and  invite  them  to  accede 
to  them."  Declaring  that  the  three  rules  had  not  been  recognized 
theretofore  as  International  Law  by  her  Majesty's  Government,  it 
was  a  fair  agreement  that  they  should  be  recognized  thereafter,  and 
that  the  combined  influence  of  the  British  and  American  Govern- 
ments should  be  used  to  incorporate  them  in  the  recognized  code  of 
the  world. 

But  the  Government  of  England  has  been  unwilling  to  perform 
the  duty  which  had  thus  been  agreed  upon,  and  this  refusal  gives 
rise  to  the  impression  that  England  does  not  desire  to  bind  herself 
with  other  nations  as  she  has  bound  herself  with  the  United  States. 
As  the  matter  stands,  if  England  should  be  involved  in  war  with  a 
European  power,  the  United  States  is  strictly  bound  by  the  letter 
and  spirit  of  the  three  rules ;  but  if  two  Continental  powers  become 
engaged  in  war,  England  is  not  bound  by  those  rules  in  her  conduct 
towards  them.  She  certainly  has  gained  much  in  securing  the  abso- 
lute neutrality  of  the  United  States'  when  she  is  engaged  in  war, 
but  it  cannot  be  considered  an  honorable  compliance  with  the  obliga- 
tions of  the  treaty  if  she  fails  to  use  her  influence  to  extend  the 
operation  of  the  rules. 


Following  the  provision  for  arbitration  of  the  Alabama  claims, 
the  Treaty  of  Washington  provided  for  a  Commission  to  adjust  "  all 
claims  on  the  part  of  corporations,  companies  or  private  individuals, 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  upon  the  Government  of  her  Britannic 
Majesty ;  and  on  the  part  of  corporations,  companies  or  private  indi- 
viduals, subjects  of  her  Britannic  Majesty,  upon  the  Government  of 
the  United  States."  These  were  claims  arising  out  of  acts  com- 
mitted against  the  persons  or  property  of  citizens  of  either  country 
by  the  other,  during  the  period  between  the  13th  of  April,  1861,  and 
the  9th  of  April,  1865,  inclusive, — being  simply  the  damages  inflicted 
during  the  war.  The  tribunal  to  which  all  such  claims  were  referred 
was  constituted  of  three  Commissioners ;  one  to  be  named  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  one  by  her  Britannic  Majesty,  and 
the  third  by  the  two  conjointly. 

The  Commission  was  organized  at  Washington  on  the  26th  of 
September,  1871,  and  made  its  final  award  at  Newport,  Rhode  Island, 
on  the  25th  of  September,  1873.  The  claims  presented  by  American 


500  TWENTY  YEAKS  OF  CONGRESS. 

citizens  before  the  Commission  were  only  nineteen  in  number,  amount- 
ing in  the  aggregate  to  a  little  less  than  a  million  of  dollars.  These 
claims  were  all  rejected  by  the  Commission  —  no  responsibility  of 
the  British  Government  having  been  established.  The  subjects 
of  her  Majesty  presented  478  claims  which,  with  interest  reckoned 
by  the  rule  allowed  by  the  Cqmmission,  amounted  to  196,000,000. 
Of  this  number  181  awards  were  made  in  favor  of  the  claimants, 
amounting  in  the  aggregate  to  $1,929,819,  or  only  two  per  cent  of 
the  amount  claimed.  The  amount  awarded  was  appropriated  by 
Congress  and  paid  by  the  United  States  to  the  British  Government. 
All  claims  accruing  between  1861  and  1865  for  injuries  resulting  in 
any  way  from  the  war  were  thereafter  barred.1 


The  subject  of  the  north-western  boundary  line,  commonly  known 
as  the  San  Juan  question,  was  one  of  very  considerable  importance, 
over  which  there  had  been  long  contention  between  the  two  Govern- 
ments. The  treaty  of  Independence  in  1783  was  followed  by  a  series 
of  disputes  relating  to  the  boundary  between  the  United  States  and 
British  America.  It  was  inevitable  that  a  tortuous  line,  drawn  from 
the  north-western  angle  of  Nova  Scotia  to  the  Lake  of  the  Woods 
and  thence  (as  the  treaty  erroneously  described  it)  due  west  to  the 
Mississippi  River,  would  give  occasion  for  honest  difference  of  opin- 
ion and  very  frequent  opportunity  for  technical  disputes.  The  face 
of  the  country  was  imperfectly  known  in  1783,  and  the  highlands 
and  water-courses  by  which  the  line  was  to  be  determined  could  not 
at  that  time  be  laid  down  with  accuracy. 

Beyond  the  Mississippi  (then  an  unknown  country)  territorial 
disputes  grew  up  between  Spain  and  Great  Britain.  By  the  pur- 
chase of  Louisiana  in  1803,  and  by  the  subsequently  acquired  claim 
to  the  Oregon  country,  the  sovereignty  of  the  Republic  was  extended 
to  the  Pacific;  Great  Britain  claiming  to  be  co-terminous  for  the 

1  The  Commission  that  made  these  labored  and  accurate  awards  was  composed  as 
follows :  — 

Eight  Hon.  Eussell  Gurney,  M.P.,  was  the  English  Commissioner;  Hon.  James  S. 
Fraser  of  Indiana  was  Commissioner  for  the  United  States;  Count  Louis  Corti  (Minister 
from  Italy  to  the  United  States)  was  selected  as  third  Commissioner.  Hon.  Robert  S. 
Hale,  a  learned  member  of  the  bar  of  New  York,  and  distinguished  as  a  representative 
in  Congress,  was  appointed  agent  of  the  United  States;  and  Mr.  Henry  Howard,  one  of 
the  British  secretaries  of  Legation  in  Washington,  and  most  favorably  known  to  the 
people  of  the  Capital,  was  agent  of  Her  Majesty's  Government. 


THE  NORTH-WESTERN  BOUNDARY  SETTLED.  501 

entire  distance.  By  the  treaty  of  1818  the  forty-ninth  parallel  was 
agreed  upon  as  the  boundary  from  the  line  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods 
to  the  "Stony  Mountains."  The  boundary  from  the  Stony  Moun- 
tains to  the  Pacific  was  left  for  subsequent  settlement,  and  was  finally 
adjusted  (as  already  narrated  in  these  pages)  by  the  treaty  of  1846. 
By  that  treaty  the  two  governments  agreed  to  continue  the  forty- 
ninth  parallel  as  the  boundary  from  the  Stony  Mountains  "westward 
to  the  middle  of  the  channel  which  separates  the  continent  from 
Vancouver's  Island,  and  thence  southerly  through  the  middle  of  said 
channel  and  of  Fuca  Straits  to  the  Pacific  Ocean." 

The  Commissioners  appointed  by  the  two  Governments  to  run  the 
line  could  not  come  to  an  agreement  upon  it,  —  the  British  Govern- 
ment claiming  that  it  should  be  run  through  the  Rosario  Straits, 
and  the  Government  of  the  United  States  that  it  should  be  run 
through  the  Canal  de  Haro.  If  the  line  should  be  run  by  the  Rosa- 
rio Straits  the  Island  of  San  Juan  belonged  to  Great  Britain;  if 
by  the  Canal  de  Haro  the  island  belonged  to  the  United  States  and 
formed  part  of  Washington  Territory.  It  was  now  agreed  in  the 
Treaty  of  Washington  that  the  question  should  be  left  to  the  Emperor 
of  Germany,  who  was  "authorized  to  decide  finally  and  without 
appeal  which  of  these  claims  is  most  in  accordance  with  the  true 
interpretation  of  the  treaty  of  June  15,  1846."  The  question  thus 
submitted  to  his  Imperial  Majesty  was  purely  a  geographical  one.  Its 
decision  either  way  could  scarcely  wound  the  susceptibilities  of  either 
party,  however  it  might  affect  National  interests.  It  also  relieved 
the  august  arbitrator  from  the  consideration  of  all  the  political  preju- 
dices and  pretensions  which  had  marked  the  long  line  of  boundary 
discussions  between  the  two  countries,  and  the  jealousies  and  mis- 
understandings which  had  proved  so  troublesome  during  the  period 
of  joint  occupation  of  the  Oregon  country.  The  Emperor  referred 
the  detailed  examination  of  the  subject  to  a  Commission  of  eminent 
experts  both  in  law  and  science,  and  in  accordance  with  their 
report  decided  in  favor  of  the  claim  of  the  United  States  that  the 
line  should  be  run  through  the  Canal  de  Haro. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  was  fortunate  in  having 
its  rights  and  interests  represented  before  the  Umpire  by  its  Minister 
at  Berlin,  the  Honorable  George  Bancroft.  He  was  a  member  of 
President  Polk's  Cabinet  during  the  period  of  the  discussion  and 
completion  of  the  treaty  of  1846,  and  was  Minister  at  London  when 
the  San  Juan  dispute  began.  With  his  prolonged  experience  in  his- 


502  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

torical  investigation,  Mr.  Bancroft  had  readily  mastered  every  detail 
of  the  question,  and  was  thus  enabled  to  present  it  in  the  strongest 
and  most  favorable  light.  His  success  fitly  crowned  an  official  career 
of  great  usefulness  and  honor.  His  memorial  to  the  Emperor  of 
Germany,  when  he  presented  the  case,  was  conceived  in  his  happiest 
style.  The  opening  words  were  felicitous  and  touching :  "  The  treaty 
of  which  the  interpretation  is  referred  to  Your  Majesty's  arbitrament 
was  ratified  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago.  Of  the  sixteen 
members  of  the  British  Cabinet  which  framed  and  presented  it  for 
the  acceptance  of  the  United  States,  Sir  Robert  Peel,  Lord  Aber- 
deen, and  all  the  rest  but  one,  are  no  more.  The  British  Minister 
at  Washington  who  signed  it  is  dead.  Of  American  statesmen 
concerned  in  it,  the  Minister  at  London,  the  President  and  Vice- 
President,  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  every  one  of  the  President's 
constitutional  advisers,  except  one,  have  passed  away.  I  alone  re- 
main, and  after  finishing  the  threescore  years  and  ten  that  are  the 
days  of  our  years,  am  selected  by  my  country  to  uphold  its  rights." 

The  decision  of  the  Emperor  was  given  on  the  21st  of  October 
(1872).  The  British  Government  accepted  it  cordially  and  Lord 
Granville  immediately  instructed  Sir  Edward  Thornton  to  propose 
that  the  two  Governments  should  resume  the  work  of  the  boundary 
commission,  which  was  interrupted  in  1859.  In  accordance  with 
this  proposition  a  chart  was  immediately  prepared  and  approved  by 
both  parties  to  the  treaty.  It  is  unnecessary  to  point  out  the  advan- 
tage to  the  United  States  of  the  decision.  A  glance  at  the  map  will 
show  it  in  full  detail.  The  conclusion  of  the  negotiation  enabled 
President  Grant  to  say  in  his  message  to  Congress,  December,  1872, 
—  ninety  years  after  the  close  of  the  Revolutionary  war,  —  "It  leaves 
us  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  .of  the  United  States  as  a  nation, 
without  a  question  of  disputed  boundary  between  our  territory  and 
the  possessions  of  Great  Britain  on  the  American  continent." 

NOTE.  —  The  question  of  the  fisheries  — the  last  for  whose  adjudication  the  Treaty  of 
Washington  provided  — is  referred  to  in  a  subsequent  chapter. 


CHAPTEE  XXL 

OPENING  FORTY-SECOND  CONGRESS. — DEPOSITION  OF  CHARLES  SUMNER  FROM  CHAIR- 
MANSHIP OF  FOREIGN  RELATIONS.  — EXCITING  DEBATE.— GRAVE  INJUSTICE  TO  MR. 
SUMNER.  —  DEMOCRATIC  SENATORS  OPPOSE  THE  ACT.  — NEW  SENATORS.  — MATT  W. 
RANSOM.  —  FRANK  P.  BLAIR,  JUN.  — HENRY  G.  DAVIS.  — POWELL  CLAYTON.  — OR- 
GANIZATION OF  THE  HOUSE.  —  MR.  ELAINE  RE-ELECTED  SPEAKER.  —  DEMOCRATS 

CONTROL  MORE  THAN  ONE-THIRD  OF  HOUSE.  —  VALUABLE  ACCESSIONS  TO  MEMBER- 
SHIP. —  POLITICAL  DISABILITIES.  —  REMOVED  FROM  INDIVIDUALS.  —  GENERAL  AM- 
NESTY PROPOSED.  CiVIL-RlGHTS  BlLL.  —  COURSE  OF  COLORED  MEMBERS  OF  THB 

HOUSE.  — THEIR  JUSTICE  AND  MAGNANIMITY. 

THE  opening  of  the  Forty-second  Congress,  on  the  4th  of  March, 
1871,  was  disfigured  by  an  act  of  grave  injustice  committed  by 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  Charles  Sumner  was  deposed  from 
the  chairmanship  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  —  a 
position  he  had  held  continuously  since  the  Republican  party  gained 
control  of  the  Senate.  The  cause  of  his  displacement  may  be  found 
in  the  angry  contentions  to  which  the  scheme  of  annexing  San 
Domingo  gave  rise.  Mr.  Sumner's  opposition  to  that  project  was 
intense,  and  his  words  carried  with  them  what  was  construed  as  a 
personal  affront  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  —  though 
never  so  intended  by  the  Massachusetts  senator.  When  the  commit- 
tees were  announced  from  the  Republican  caucus  on  the  10th  of 
March,  1871,  by  Mr.  Howe  of  Wisconsin,  Mr.  Cameron  of  Pennsyl- 
vania appeared  as  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations 
and  Mr.  Sumner  was  assigned  to  the  chairmanship  of  a  new  com- 
mittee, —  Privileges  and  Elections,  —  created  for  the  exigency.1 

The  removal  of  Mr.  Sumner  from  his  place  had  been  determined 
in  a  caucus  of  Republican  senators,  and  never  was  the  power  of  the 
caucus  more  wrongfully  applied.  Many  senators  were  compelled, 
from  their  sense  of  obedience  to  the  decision  of  the  majority,  to 
commit  an  act  against  their  conceptions  of  right,  against  what  they 
believed  to  be  justice  to  a  political  associate,  against  what  they 

1  Objection  was  not  interposed  against  Mr.  Cameron  personally.  By  seniority  he  was 
entitled  to  the  place  in  the  event  of  a  vacancy.  The  controversy  related  solely  to  the 
refusal  to  give  Mr.  Sumner  his  old  position. 

503 


504  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

believed  to  be  sound  public  policy,  against  what  they  believed  to  be 
the  interest  of  the  Republican  party.  The  caucus  is  a  convenience 
in  party  organization  to  determine  the  course  to  be  pursued  in  mat- 
ters of  expediency  which  do  not  involve  questions  of  moral  obliga- 
tion or  personal  justice.  Rightfully  employed,  the  caucus  is  not  only 
useful  but  necessary  in  the  conduct  and  government  of  party  interests. 
Wrongfully  applied,  it  is  a  weakness,  an  offense,  a  stumbling-block 
in  the  way  of  party  prosperity. 

Mr.  Sumner's  deposition  from  the  place  he  had  so  long  honored 
was  not  accomplished,  however,  without  protest  and  contest.  Mr. 
Schurz  made  an  inquiry  of  Mr.  Howe  as  to  the  grounds  upon  which 
the  senator  was  to  be  deposed ;  and  the  answer  was  that  "  the  per- 
sonal relations  between  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  and  the 
President  of  the  United  States  and  the  head  of  the  State  Department 
are  such  as  preclude  all  social  intercourse  between  them."  "In 
brief,"  said  Mr.  Howe,  "I  may  say  that  the  information  communi- 
cated to  us  was  that  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  refused  to  hold 
personal  intercourse  with  the  Secretary  of  State." 

—  Mr.  Schurz,  sitting  near  Mr.  Sumner,  immediately  answered  for 
that  senator  that  "he  had  not  refused  to  enter  into  any  official 
relations,  either  with  the  President  of  the  United  States  or  with  the 
Secretary  of  State ;  and  that  upon  inquiry  being  made  of  him,  Mr. 
Sumner  had  answered  that  he  would  receive  Mr.  Fish  as  an  old 
friend,  and  would  not  only  be  willing  but  would  be  glad  to  transact 
such  matters  and  to  discuss  such  questions  as  might  come  up  for 
consideration."     And  Mr.  Sumner  added:  "In  Ms  own  house" 

—  Mr.  Wilson,  the  colleague  of  Mr.  Sumner,  spoke  with  great  ear- 
nestness against  the  wrong  contemplated  by  the  act :  "  Sir,"  said  he, 
"we  saw  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  on  this  floor,  at  the  bidding  of  Mr. 
Buchanan's  administration,  in  obedience  to  the  demands  of  the  slave- 
holding  leaders  and  the  all-conquering  slave  power,  put  down,  dis- 
rated, from  his  committee.     We  saw  seeds  then  sown  that  blossomed 
and  bore  bitter  fruit  at  Charleston  in  1860.     Now  we  propose  to  try 
a  similar  experiment.     I  hope  and  trust  in  God  that  we  shall  not 
witness  similar  results.     I  love  justice  and  fair  play,  and  I  think  I 
know  enough  of  the  American  people  to  know  that  ninety-nine  hun- 
dredths  of  the  men  who  elected  this  administration  in  1868  will 
disapprove  this  act."     Mr.  Trumbull,  Mr.  Logan  and  Mr.  Tipton 
were  the  only  Republican  senators  who  joined  with  Mr.  Wilson  in 
openly  deprecating  the  decree  of  the  party  caucus. 


MR.  SUMNER  DEPOSED  FROM  HIS  COMMITTEE.  505 

—  Mr.  Edmunds,  who  was  one  of  the  active  promoters  -of  Mr.  Sum- 
ner's  deposition,  declared  that  the  question  was  "  whether  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States  and  the  Republican  party  are  quite  ready  to 
sacrifice  their  sense  of  duty  to  the  whims  of  one  single  man,  whether 
he  comes  from  New  England,  or  from  Missouri,  or  from  Illinois,  or 
from  anywhere  else."     He  described  the  transaction  as  a  business 
affair  of  changing  a  member  from  one  committee  to  another  for  the 
convenience  of  the  Senate,  and  said:  "When  I  hear  my  friend  from 
Massachusetts   [Mr.  Wilson]  and  the  senator  from  Missouri   [Mr. 
Schurz]  making  these  displays  about  a  mere  matter  of  ordinary  con- 
venience, it  reminds  me  of  the  nursery  story  of  the  children  who 
thought  the  sky  was  going  to  fall,  and  it  turned  out  in  the  end  that 
it  was  only  a  rose-leaf  that  had  fallen  from  a  bush  to  the  ground." 

—  Senator  Sherman  defended  the  right  of  the  caucus  to  make  the 
decision.    "  Whenever  that  decision  is  made  known,"  said  he,  "  every 
one,  however  high  may  be  his  position,  however  great  his  services,  is 
bound  by  the  common  courtesies  which  prevail  in  these  political 
bodies  to  yield  at  once.  ...  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  make  this  explana- 
tion of  the  vote  I  shall  give.     I  think  I  am  bound  by  the  decision 
made  after  full  debate  upon  this  mere  personal  point,  involving  only 
the  question  whether  the  honorable  senator  from  Massachusetts  shall 
occupy  the  chairmanship  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  or 
the  chairmanship  of  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections." 

Other  incidents  connected  with  the  removal  tended  to  give  it  the 
air  of  discourtesy  to  Mr.  Sumner.  One  feature  of  it  was  especially 
marked  and  painful.  Mr.  Sumner's  acquaintance  in  Europe,  cer- 
tainly in  England,  was  larger  than  that  of  any  other  member  of  the 
Senate.  His  speech  on  the  Alabama  claims  was  the  first  utterance  on 
the  subject  which  had  arrested  the  attention  of  England,  and  now, 
as  if  in  rebuke  of  his  patriotic  position,  the  Queen's  High  Commis- 
sioners directly  after  their  arrival  in  Washington  were  called  to 
witness  a  public  indignity  toward  Mr.  Sumner.  The  action  of  the 
Senate  was,  in  effect,  notice  to  the  whole  world  that  Mr.  Sumner 
was  to  have  no  further  connection  with  a  great  international  question 
to  which  he  had  given  more  attention  than  any  other  person  con- 
nected with  the  Government. 

Mr.  Sumner  declined  the  service  to  which  he  was  assigned,  and 
from  that  time  forward  to  the  day  of  his  death  he  had  no  rank  as 
chairman,  no  place  upon  a  committee  of  the  Senate,  no  committee- 
room  for  his  use,  no  clerk  assigned  to  him  for  the  needed  discharge 


506  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

of  his  public  duties.  When  Mr.  Sunnier  entered  the  Senate  twenty 
years  before,  the  pro-slavery  leaders  who  then  controlled  it  had 
determined  at  one  time  in  their  caucus  to  exclude  him  from  all 
committee  service  on  account  of  his  offensive  opinions  in  regard  to 
slavery,  but  upon  sober  second  thought  they  concluded  that  a  per- 
secution of  that  kind  would  add  to  Mr.  Sumner's  strength  rather  than 
detract  from  it.  He  was  therefore  given  the  ordinary  assignments 
of  a  new  member  by  the  Southern  men  in  control  and  was  thence 
regularly  advanced  until  he  became  a  member  of  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations,  under  the  chairmanship  of  James  M.  Mason,  with 
Douglas  and  Slidell  as  fellow-members. 

For  his  fidelity  to  principle  and  his  boldness  in  asserting  the  truth 
at  an  earlier  day  Mr.  Sumner  was  struck  down  in  the  Senate  cham- 
ber by  a  weapon  in  the  hands  of  a  political  foe.  It  was  impossible  to 
anticipate  that  fifteen  years  later  he  would  be  even  more  cruelly 
struck  down  in  the  Senate  by  the  members  of  the  party  he  had  done 
so  much  to  establish.  The  cruelty  was  greater  in  the  latter  case,  as 
anguish  of  spirit  is  greater  than  suffering  of  body.  In  both  instances 
Mr.  Sumner's  bearing  was  distinguished  by  dignity  and  magnanimity. 
He  gave  utterance  to  no  complaints,  and  silently  submitted  to  the 
unjustifiable  wrong  of  which  he  was  a  victim.  That  nothing  might 
be  lacking  in  the  extraordinary  character  of  the  final  scene  of  his 
deposition,  the  Democratic  senators  recorded  themselves  against  the 
consummation  of  the  injustice.  They  had  no  co-operation  from  the 
Republicans.  The  caucus  dictation  was  so  strong  that  discontented 
Republicans  merely  refrained  from  voting. 


The  personal  changes  in  the  Senate,  under  the  new  elections, 
were  less  numerous  than  usual.  General  Logan  took  the  place  of 
Richard  Yates  from  Illinois,  having  been  promoted  from  the  House, 
where  his  service  since  the  war  had  been  efficient  and  distinguished. 
—  Matt  W.  Ransom,  a  Confederate  soldier  who  had  held  high 
command  in  General  Lee's  army,  took  the  place  of  Joseph  C.  Abbott 
of  North  Carolina.  Mr.  Ransom  had  been  well  educated  at  the 
University  at  Chapel  Hill,  was  a  lawyer  by  profession,  had  been 
Attorney-General  of  his  State,  and  had  served  several  years  in  the 
Legislature.  Severe  service  in  the  field  during  the  four  years  of 
the  war  had  somewhat  impaired  his  health,  but  his  personal  bearing 


NEW  SENATORS  IN  FORTY-SECOND  CONGRESS.  507 

and  the  general  moderation  of  his  views  rapidly  won  for  him  many- 
friends  in  both  political  parties. 

—  General  Frank  P.  Blair,  jun.,  entered  as  senator  from  Missouri 
a  few  weeks  preceding  the  4th  of  March,  filling  the  place  made  va- 
cant by  the  resignation  of  Senator  Drake,  who  was  appointed  to  the 
Bench  of  the  Court  of  Claims.     General  Blair's  political  career  had 
been  somewhat  checkered  and  changeful.     Originally  a  Democrat  of 
the  Van  Buren  type,  he  had  helped  to  organize  the  Republican  party 
after  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.     He  remained  a  Repub- 
lican until  the  defection  of  Andrew  Johnson,  when  he  joined  the 
Democrats,  and  became  so  vituperatively  hostile  that  the  Senate  in 
1866  successively  rejected  his  nomination  for  Collector  of  Internal 
Revenue  in  the  St.  Louis  district,  and  for  Minister  to  Austria.     He 
was  a  good  soldier,  rose  to  the  rank  of  Major-General,  and  secured 
the  commendation  of  General  Grant,  which  was  far  more  than  a  brevet 
from  the  War  Department.     His  defeat  for  the  Vice-Presidency  had, 
if  possible,  increased  his  antagonism  to  the  Republican  party,  and  he 
now  came  to  the  Senate  as  much  embittered  against  his  late  associates 
as  he  had  been  against  the  Democrats  ten  years  before.     He  was 
withal  a  generous-minded  man  of  strong  parts,  but  the  career  for 
which  nature  fitted  him  was  irreparably  injured  by  the  unsteadiness 
of  his  political  course. 

—  Henry   G.   Davis,   a   native   of  Maryland,   entered  as   the  first 
Democratic  senator  from  West  Virginia.     His   personal   popularity 
was   a  large   factor  in  the  contest  against  the  Republicans  of  his 
State,  and  he  was  naturally  rewarded  by  his  party  as  its  most  influ- 
ential leader.     Mr.  Davis  had  honorably  wrought  his  own  way  to 
high  station,  and  had  been  all  his  life  in  active  affairs.     As  a  farmer, 
a  railroad  man,  a  lumberman,  an  operator  in  coal,  a  banker,  he  had 
been  uniformly  successful.     He  came  to  the  Senate  with  that  kind 
of  practical  knowledge  which  schooled  him  to  care  and  usefulness  as 
a  legislator.     He  steadily  grew  in  the  esteem  and  confidence  of  both 
sides  of  the  Senate,  and  when  his  party  attained  the  majority  he  was 
entrusted  with  the  responsible  duty  of  the  chairmanship  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Appropriations.     No  more  painstaking  or  trustworthy  man 
ever  held  the  place.    While  firmly  adhering  to  his  party,  he  was  at 
all  times  courteous,  and  in  the  business  of  the  Senate  or  in  social 
intercourse  never  obtruded  partisan  views.     He  was  re-elected  with- 
out effort,  but  early  gave  notice  that  at  the  end  of  his  second  term 
he  would  retire  from  active  political  life. 


508  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

—  Powell  Clayton,  who  succeeded  Alexander  McDonald  as  senator 
from  Arkansas,  was  a  native  of  Delaware  County,  Pennsylvania, 
a  member  of  the  well-known  Clayton  family  long  settled  in  Penn- 
sylvania, Delaware  and  Maryland.  He  was  educated  at  a  military 
school  in  Pennsylvania  and  trained  as  a  civil  engineer.  He  was 
engaged  in  that  profession  in  Kansas  in  1860-61,  and  upon  the  out- 
break of  the  war  immediately  enlisted  in  the  Union  Army.  He  was 
rapidly  promoted  to  the  rank  of  Brigadier-General,  and  made  an 
admirable  record  for  efficiency  and  bravery.  When  the  war  closed 
he  was  commanding  a  district  in  Arkansas.  He  remained  there  as  a 
citizen  of  the  State  and  was  active  and  influential  during  the  period 
of  reconstruction.  In  1868  he  was  elected  Governor,  and  at  the  close 
of  his  term  was  chosen  United-States  senator.  He  is  a  man  of  char- 
acter, —  quiet  and  undemonstrative  in  manner,  but  with  extraordinary 
qualities  of  firmness  and  endurance. 


The  House  of  Representatives  was  organized  without  delay  or 
obstruction.  Mr.  Elaine  was  re-elected  Speaker,  —  receiving  126 
votes  to  92  cast  for  George  W.  Morgan  of  Ohio,  who  had  been  nomi- 
nated as  the  Democratic  candidate.  The  oath  of  office  was  adminis- 
tered to  the  Speaker  by  Mr.  Dawes  of  Massachusetts,  who  by  Mr. 
Washburne's  retirement  had  become  the  member  of  longest  continu- 
ous service.  The  vote  of  the  opposing  candidates  showed  that  in  the 
elections  for  this  Congress  the  Democrats  had  made  an  obvious  gain 
in  the  country  at  large.  The  Republicans  for  the  first  time  since 
1861  failed  to  command  two-thirds  of  the  House,  —  a  circumstance 
of  much  less  importance  when  Congress  is  in  harmony  with  the  Ex- 
ecutive than  when,  in  conflict  with  him,  the  necessity  arises  for  pass- 
ing bills  over  his  veto.  But  while  the  majority  was  not  -large,  the 
House  received  valuable  accessions  among  the  new  members. 
—  Joseph  R.  Hawley,  who  now  entered  the  House,  was  born  in  North 
Carolina  of  Connecticut  parents.  He  was  educated  in  the  North  and 
began  the  practice  of  law  at  Hartford  in  1850.  Gifted  with  a  ready 
pen,  he  soon  adopted  the  editorial  profession,  and  was  conducting 
a  Republican  journal  in  1861  when  the  war  broke  out.  He  enlisted 
the  day  after  Sumter  was  fired  upon,  and  remained  in  the  service 
until  the  rebel  armies  surrendered,  when  he  returned  to  his  home 
and  became  editor  of  the  Hartford  Courant,  with  which  his  name  has 


PROMINENT  REPRESENTATIVES  IN  CONGRESS.  509 

been  conspicuously  identified  for  many  years.  His  military  record 
was  faultless,  as  might  well  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  he  began 
as  a  private  and  ended  with  the  brevet  of  Major-General.  He  at 
once  entered  upon  a  political  career,  which  in  a  State  so  closely 
divided  as  Connecticut  involves  labor  and  persistence.  His  two  con- 
tests for  Governor  in  1866  and  1867,  with  James  E.  English  as  his 
opponent,  enlisted  wide-spread  interest.  The  men  were  both  popular : 
Hawley's  special  strength  was  the  record  of  Tiis  service  in  the  field ; 
English  had  maintained  an  honorable  reputation  as  a  War  Democrat 
at  home,  and  had  voted  in  Congress  for  the  Thirteenth  Amendment 
to  the  Constitution.  Both  could  therefore  appeal  to  the  Union 
sentiment  then  so  pronounced  among  the  people.  In  the  election 
of  1866  Hawley  was  victorious  by  a  few  hundred ;  in  the  election  of 
1867  English  was  victorious  by  a  few  hundred,  —  in  a  total  poll  each 
year  of  about  90,000  votes.  In  Congress  General  Hawley  at  once 
took  active  part  in  the  proceedings  and  debates.  A  forcible  speaker, 
with  quick  perception  and  marked  industry,  he  had  all  the  requisites 
for  success  in  a  Parliamentary  body. 

—  Ellis  H.  Roberts  took  his  seat  as  a  Republican  representative  from 
the  Utica  district,  New  York,  of  which  he  is  a  native.  Immediately 
after  his  graduation  at  Yale  he  became  the  editor  of  the  Utica  Morn- 
ing Herald,  —  a  position  he  has  ever  since  held.  The  strength  of 
Mr.  Roberts,  his  intellectual  resources,  the  variety  and  extent  of  his 
knowledge,  the  elegance  and  purity  of  his  style,  may  be  found  in  his 
editorial  columns.  No  test  of  a  man's  power  is  more  severe  than  the 
demand  made  by  a  daily  newspaper.  Without  the  opportunity  for 
elaborate  investigation  of  each  subject  as  it  arises,  he  must  have  a 
mind  well  stored  with  knowledge  ;  without  time  for  leisurely  compo- 
sition, he  must  possess  the  power  of  writing  off-hand  with  force  and 
precision.  Tried  by  these  requirements,  Mr.  Roberts  has  for  a  third 
of  a  century  exhibited  a  high  order  of  ability,  with  a  constantly  en- 
larging sphere  of  knowledge,  a  constantly  growing  power  of  logical 
statement.  He  entered  Congress,  therefore,  with  great  advantages 
and  resources.  So  well  recognized  were  these,  that  the  general  opin- 
ion of  his  colleagues  indicated  him  for  the  Ways  and  Means  Com- 
mittee, a  position  rarely  assigned  to  any  but  an  old  member.  Mr. 
Roberts  took  active  and  influential  part  in  all  the  financial  legisla- 
tion, and  soon  acquired  a  strong  hold  upon  the  House.  He  always 
spoke  clearly  and  forcibly,  possessing  at  the  same  time  the  art  and 
tact  of  speaking  briefly.  He  was  re-elected  in  1872,  but  suffered 


510  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

defeat  in  the  general  Republican  reverse  of  1874.  If  he  had  been 
sustained  by  the  force  of  a  strong  Republican  majority,  he  could  not 
have  failed  to  increase  the  distinction  he  gained  in  his  brief  service, 
and  to  become  one  of  the  recognized  leaders  of  the  House. 

—  William  P.  Frye  took  his  seat  from  Maine.     Though  but  thirty- 
nine  years  of  age,  he  had  for  a  considerable  period  been  conspicuous 
in  his  State.     He  graduated  at  Bowdoin  College  at  nineteen  years 
of  age  (in  1850),  and  soon  became  professionally  and  politically 
active.     From   the   first  organization   of  the   Republican  party  he 
supported  its  principles  and  its  candidates  with  well-directed  zeal. 
He  served  several  terms  in  the  Legislature  and  was  one  of  the  fore- 
most figures  in  the  House  of  Representatives  in  1862,  recognized  as 
one  of  the  ablest  that  ever  assembled  in  Maine.     He  acquired  a 
high  reputation  as  an  advocate  and  was  thrice  elected  Attorney-Gen- 
eral of  the  State.     At  the  close  of  his  service  in  that  important 
office  he  was  chosen  to  represent  his  district  in  Congress.     His  rank 
as  a  debater  was  soon  established,  and  he  exhibited  a  degree  of  care 
and  industry  in  committee  work  not  often  found  among  represent- 
atives who  so  readily  command  the  attention  of  the  House. 

—  Charles  Foster  came  from  the  north-western  section  of  Ohio  in 
which  his  father  had  been  one  of  the  pioneers  and  the  founder  of 
the  town  of  Fostoria.     He  attracted  more  than  the  ordinary  attention 
given  to  new  members,  from  the  fact  that  he  had  been  able  to  carry 
a  Democratic  district,  and,  for  a  young  man,  to  exert  a  large  influ- 
ence upon  public  opinion.     He  was  distinguished  by  strong  common 
sense,  by  a  popular  manner,  by  personal  generosity,  and  by  a  quick 
instinct  as  to  the  expediency  of  political  measures  and  the  strength 
of  political  parties.     These  qualities  at  once  gave  him  a  position  of 
consequence  in  the  House  superior  to  that  held  by  many  of  the  older 
members  of  established  reputation.     His  subsequent  career  vindi- 
cated his  early  promise,  and  enabled  him  to  lead  the    Republican 
party  of  Ohio  to  victory  in  more  than  one  canvass  which  at  the 
outset  was  surrounded  with  doubt  and  danger. 

—  Two  of  the  most  conspicuous  and  successful  business  men  from 
the  North- West  appeared  in  this  House.   Charles  B.  Farwell,  one  of  the 
leading  merchants  of  Chicago,  entered  as  a  Republican ;  and  Alex- 
ander Mitchell,  prominent  in  railway  and  banking  circles,  came  as  a 
Democrat  from  Milwaukee.     Mr.  Farwell  was  a  native  of  New  York, 
and  went  to  the  West  when  a  boy,  with  a  fortune  which  consisted  of 
a  good  education  and  habits  of  industry.    When  elected  to  Congress, 


PROMINENT  REPRESENTATIVES  IN  CONGRESS.  511 

he  had  long  been  regarded  as  one  of  the  ablest  and  most  successful 
merchants  of  Chicago.  He  was  chosen  over  John  Wentworth  by  a 
a  majority  of  more  than  five  thousand.  —  Alexander  Mitchell  was  a 
Scotchman  by  birth,  with  all  the  qualities  of  his  race,  — acute,  indus- 
trious, wary  and  upright.  He  had  taken  a  leading  position  in  the 
financial  affairs  of  the  North- West,  and  maintained  it  with  ability, 
being  rated  for  years  as  a  man  of  great  wealth  honestly  acquired. 
—  Jeremiah  M.  Wilson  of  Indiana  entered  the  House  with  the 
reputation  of  being  a  strong  lawyer  —  a  reputation  established  by 
his  practice  at  the  bar  and  his  service  on  the  bench.  —  H.  Boardman 
Smith  of  the  Elmira  district,  New  York,  was  afterwards  well  known 
on  the  Supreme  Bench  of  his  State.  —  Jeremiah  Rusk  of  Wisconsin 
came  with  a  good  war  record,  and  subsequently  became  Governor 
of  his  State.  —  Mark  H.  Dunnell,  from  Minnesota,  was  a  native  of 
Maine,  had  been  a  member  of  each  branch  of  the  Maine  Legisla- 
ture and  for  several  years  was  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruc- 
tion.—  John  T.  Averill  was  also  a  native  of  Maine.  He  had  won  the 
rank  of  Brigadier-General  in  the  war,  and  had  afterwards  become 
extensively  engaged  in  manufacturing  in  Minnesota.  —  James  Mon- 
roe from  the  Obeiiin  district,  Ohio,  was  a  man  of  cultivation  and  of 
high  character.  He  had  served  for  several  years  in  the  Legislature 
of  his  State,  and  had  been  Consul-General  at  Rio  Janeiro  under  Mr. 
Lincoln's  Administration.  —  Isaac  C.  Parker,  a  Republican  from 
Missouri,  made  so  good  a  reputation  in  the  house  that  he  was  ap- 
pointed to  the  United  States  District  bench.  —  Walter  L.  Sessions, 
an  active  politician,  entered  from  the  Chautauqua  district  of  New 
York.  — Alfred  C.  Harmer,  well  known  in  Philadelphia,  entered  from 
one  of  the  districts  of  that  city.  —  John  Hancock,  a  man  of  ability 
and  character,  entered  from  Texas.  —  Gerry  W.  Hazelton,  with  a 
fine  legal  reputation,  came  from  Wisconsin.  —  Henry  Waldron,  who 
had  served  some  years  before,  returned  from  Michigan. 


The  political  disabilities  imposed  by  the  third  section  of  the  Four- 
teenth Amendment  to  the  Constitution  affected  large  classes  in  the 
Southern  States.  When  the  Amendment  was  under  discussion  in  Con- 
gress, the  total  number  affected  was  estimated  at  fourteen  thousand, 
but  subsequently  it  was  ascertained  to  be  much  greater.  It  included 
not  only  those  who  had  been  members  of  Congress,  or  held  any 


512  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

office  under  the  United  States,  but  all  those  who  had  been  Executive 
and  Judicial  officers  or  members  of  the  Legislatures  in  the  revolted 
States.  The  Proclamation,  making  its  ratification  known  to  the 
people,  was  issued  by  Secretary  Seward  on  the  twentieth  day  of  July, 
1868 ;  but  in  advance  of  this  formal  announcement  Congress  (then  in 
session)  began  to  relieve  the  persons  affected.  The  first  act  was  for 
the  benefit  of  Roderick  R.  Butler  of  Tennessee,  representative-elect  to 
the  Fortieth  Congress.  It  was  approved  on  the  19th  of  June  (1868), 
and  permission  was  given  him  to  take  a  modified  oath.  On  the  25th 
of  June  amnesty  was  extended  to  about  one  thousand  persons,  and 
during  the  remainder  of  the  Congress  some  five  hundred  more  were 
relieved  from  political  disability.  In  the  Forty-first  Congress  the 
liberality  of  the  majority  did  not  grow  less;  and  during  the  two 
years  thirty-three  hundred  participators  in  the  rebellion  —  among 
them  some  of  the  most  prominent  and  influential — were  restored  to 
the  full  privileges  of  citizenship ;  the  rule  being,  in  fact,  that  every 
one  who  asked  for  it,  either  through  himself  or  his  friends,  was  freely 
granted  remission  of  penalty. 

At  the  opening  of  the  Forty-second  Congress  it  was  evident  that 
the  practice  of  removing  the  disabilities  of  individuals  would  not 
find  favor  as  in  the  two  preceding  Congresses.  There  was  a  dispo- 
sition rather  to  classify  and  reserve  for  further  consideration  the 
really  offending  men  and  give  general  amnesty  to  all  others.  To  this 
end,  Mr.  Hale  of  Maine,  on  the  10th  of  April,  1871,  moved  to  sus- 
pend the  rules  in  order  that  a  bill  might  be  passed  removing  legal 
and  political  disabilities  from  all  persons  who  had  participated  in  the 
rebellion,  except  the  following  classes  :  first,  members  of  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  who  withdrew  therefrom  and  aided^  the  rebel- 
lion ;  second,  officers  of  the  Army  and  Navy,  who,  being  above  the 
age  of  twenty-one  years,  left  the  service  and  aided  the  rebellion ; 
third,  members  of  State  Conventions  who  voted  for  pretended  ordi- 
nances of  secession.  It  was  further  provided  that  before  receiving 
the  benefit  of  this  Act  each  person  should  take  an  oath  of  loyalty 
before  the  Clerk  of  a  United  States  Court  or  before  a  United  States 
Commissioner.  Debate  was  not  allowed  and  the  bill  was  passed  by 
more  than  the  requisite  two-thirds  —  ayes  134,  noes  46. 

When  the  Bill  came  before  the  Senate,  Mr.  Robertson  of  South 
Carolina  attempted  to  put  it  on  its  passage,  but  objection  being  made 
it  was  referred  under  the  rule,  and  thereby  postponed  for  the  ses- 
sion. With  this  result  the  pressure  for  individual  relief  of  the  dis- 


UNIVERSAL  AMNESTY  PROPOSED.  513 

abled  persons  became  so  great,  that  at  the  next  session  of  Congress 
a  bill  was  prepared  and  passed  in  the  House,  containing  some  seven- 
teen thousand  names,  to  which  the  Senate  proposed  to  add  some 
three  thousand.  But  the  effect  of  this  was  still  further  to  impress 
upon  Congress  the  necessity  of  some  generalization  of  the  process  of 
relief.  The  impossibility  of  examining  into  the  merits  of  individuals 
by  tens  of  thousands,  and  of  establishing  the  quality  and  degree  of 
their  offenses,  was  so  obvious  that  representatives  on  both  sides  of 
the  House  demanded  an  Act  of  general  amnesty,  excepting  there- 
from only  the  few  classes  whose  names  would  lead  to  discussion  and 
possibly  to  the  defeat  of  the  beneficent  measure. 

General  Butler  accordingly  reported  from  the  Judiciary  Commit- 
tee, on  the  13th  of  May,  1872,  a  bill  removing  the  disabilities  "  from 
all  persons  whomsoever,  except  senators  and  representatives  of  the 
Thirty-sixth  and  Thirty-seventh  Congresses,  officers  in  the  Judicial, 
Military  and  Naval  service  of  the  United  States,  heads  of  Depart- 
ments, and  foreign  Ministers  of  the  United  States."  This  Act  of 
amnesty,  which  left  so  few  under  disabilities  (not  exceeding  seven 
hundred  and  fifty  in  all),  would  have  been  completed  long  before,  but 
for  the  unwillingness  of  the  Democratic  party  to  combine  with  it 
a  measure,  originated  and  earnestly  advocated  by  Mr.  Sumner,  to 
broaden  the  civil  rights  of  the  colored  man,  to  abolish  discrimina- 
tions against  him  as  enforced  by  hotels,  railroad  companies,  places  of 
public  amusement,  and  in  short,  in  every  capacity  where  he  was  ren- 
dered unequal  in  privilege  to  the  white  man.  But  the  Democratic 
leaders  were  not  willing  to  accept  amnesty  for  their  political  friends- 
in  the  South,  if  at  the  same  time  they  must  take  with  it  the  libera- 
tion of  the  colored  man  from  odious  personal  discriminations. 

The  Democrats  were  now  to  witness  an  exhibition  of  magna- 
nimity in  the  colored  representatives  which  had  not  been  shown 
towards  them.  When  the  Amnesty  Bill  came  before  the  House  for 
consideration,  Mr.  Rainey  of  South  Carolina,  speaking  for  the  colored 
race  whom  he  represented,  said :  "  It  is  not  the  disposition  of  my 
constituents  that  these  disabilities  should  longer  be  retained.  We 
are  desirous  of  being  magnanimous :  it  may  be  that  we  are  so  to  a 
fault.  Nevertheless  we  have  open  and  frank  hearts  towards  those 
who  were  our  former  oppressors  and  taskmasters.  We  foster  no  en- 
mity now,  and  we  desire  to  foster  none,  for  their  acts  in  the  past  to 
us  or  to  the  Government  we  love  so  well.  But  while  we  are  willing 
to  accord  them  their  enfranchisement  and  here  to-day  give  our  votes 
VOL.  II.  aa 


514  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

that  they  may  be  amnestied,  while  we  declare  our  hearts  open  and 
free  from  any  vindictive  feelings  towards  them,  we  would  say  to 
those  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  that  there  is  another  class  of  citi- 
zens in  the  country,  who  have  certain  rights  and  immunities  which 
they  would  like  you,  sirs,  to  remember  and  respect.  .  .  .  We  invoke 
you,  gentlemen,  to  show  the  same  kindly  feeling  towards  us,  a  race 
long  oppressed,  and  in  demonstration  of  this  humane  and  just  feel- 
ing, I  implore  you,  give  support  to  the  Civil-rights  Bill,  which  we 
have  been  asking  at  your  hands,  lo !  these  many  days." 

There  was  no  disposition,  as  General  Butler  explained,  to  unite 
the  Civil-rights  Bill  with  the  Amnesty  Bill,  because  the  former  could 
be  passed  by  a  majority,  while  the  latter  required  two-thirds.  With 
General  Butler  and  the  colored  representatives  speaking  for  the 
most  radical  sentiment  of  the  House,  and  the  Democrats  eager  for 
the  bill  if  it  could  be  disentangled  from  all  connection  with  other 
measures,  complete  unanimity  was  reached,  and  the  bill  was  enacted 
without  even  a  division  being  demanded. 

When  the  measure  reached  the  Senate  it  was  governed  by  an 
understanding  that  without  being  united  in  the  same  Act  it  should 
keep  even  pace  with  the  Civil-rights  Bill,  and  that  while  the  South- 
ern white  man  was  to  be  relieved  of  his  political  disabilities  the 
Southern  black  man  should  be  endowed  with  his  personal  rights. 
On  the  21st  of  May,  therefore,  the  Civil-rights  Bill  was  taken  up  for 
consideration  in  advance  of  the  Amnesty  Bill.  In  the  temporary 
absence  of  Mr.  Sumner  from  the  Senate  chamber,  the  equality  recog- 
nized as  to  public  schools  and  jury  service  was  struck  out,  and  in 
that  form  the  bill  was  passed.  The  Amnesty  Bill  was  immediately 
taken  up ;  while  it  was  pending  Mr.  Sumner  returned  and  warmly 
denounced  the  fundamental  change  that  had  been  made  in  the 
Civil-rights  Bill.  In  consequence  of  what  he  considered  a  breach 
of  faith  on  the  question,  he  voted  against  the  passage  of  the  Amnesty 
Bill,  Senator  Nye  of  Nevada  being  the  only  one  who  united  with  him 
in  the  negative  vote.  Mr.  Sumner's  denunciations  of  the  emascu- 
lated Civil-rights  Bill  were  extremely  severe ;  but  he  was  pertinently 
reminded  by  Senator  Anthony  of  Rhode  Island  that  the  bill  was  all 
that  could  be  obtained  in  the  Senate  at  this  session,  and  perhaps 
more  than  could  be  enacted  into  law.  The  senator  from  Rhode 
Island  had  correctly  estimated  the  probable  action  of  the  House, 
for  although  on  three  different  occasions  attempts  were  made  to  pass 
the  bill  under  a  suspension  of  the  rules,  the  Democratic  members, 


THE  CIVIL  RIGHTS  BILL.  515 

who  numbered  more  than  one-third  of  the  House,  voted  solidly  in 
the  negative,  and  thus  defeated  the  measure. 

The  colored  representatives,  who  had  been  slaves,  were  willing  to 
release  their  late  masters  from  every  form  of  disability,  but  the  im- 
mediate friends  of  the  masters  were  unwilling  to  extend  the  civil 
rights  of  the  colored  man.  So  far  as  chivalry,  magnanimity,  charity, 
Christian  kindness,  were  involved,  the  colored  men  appeared  at  an 
advantage.  Perhaps  it  is  not  surprising  that  lingering  prejudice  and 
the  sudden  change  of  situation  should  have  restrained  Southern  white 
men  from  granting  these  privileges,  but  it  must  always  be  mentioned 
to  the  credit  of  the  colored  man  that  he  gave  his  vote  for  amnesty 
to  his  former  master  when  his  demand  for  delay  would  have  obstructed 
the  passage  of  the  measure. 

In  the  stubborn  opposition  maintained  by  the  Democratic  party 
to  the  admission  of  colored  men  to  the  rights  of  citizenship,  the 
closing  argument  of  violent  harangues  was  usually  in  the  form  of  a 
question,  "  Do  you  want  to  see  them  in  Congress  ?  "  —  to  which  the 
natural  and  logical  answer  was  that  the  right  of  the  colored  man  to 
sit  in  Congress  does  not  depend  in  the  least  upon  the.  desire  or  the 
prejudice  of  other  States  and  other  districts.  It  is  solely  a  matter 
within  the  judgment  of  the  State  or  district  which  in  a  fair  vote  and 
honest  election  may  choose  to  send  him.  The  revolution  in  favor 
of  human  rights,  promoted  and  directed  by  the  Republican  party, 
swept  onward:  the  colored  man,  freed  from  slavery,  attained  the 
right  of  suffrage,  and  in  due  season  was  sent  to  Congress.  Did  harm 
result  from  it?  Nay,  was  it  not  the  needed  demonstration  of  the 
freedom  and  justice  of  a  republican  government?  If  it  be  viewed 
simply  as  an  experiment,  it  was  triumphantly  successful.  The  col- 
ored men  who  took  seats  in  both  Senate  and  House  did  not  appear 
ignorant  or  helpless.  They  were  as  a  rule  studious,  earnest,  ambi- 
tious men,  whose  public  conduct  —  as  illustrated  by  Mr.  Revels  and 
Mr.  Bruce  in  the  Senate,  and  by  Mr.  Rapier,  Mr.  Lynch  and  Mr. 
Rainey  in  the  House  —  would  be  honorable  to  any  race.  Coals  of 
fire  were  heaped  on  the  heads  of  all  their  enemies  when  the  colored 
men  in  Congress  heartily  joined  in  removing  the  disabilities  of  those 
who  had  before  been  their  oppressors,  and  who,  with  deep  regret  be 
it  said,  have  continued  to  treat  them  with  injustice  and  ignominy. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  OF  1872.  —  LIBERAL  REPUBLICAN  MOVEMENT.  —  ITS  ORIGIN.— 
DIVISION  IN  MISSOURI.  —  GRATZ  BROWN,  BLAIR,  SCHURZ.  —  CONTEST  IN  NEW  YORK. 

—  GREELEY,  FENTON,  CONKLING.  —  CONKLING'S  TRIUMPH.  —  LIBERAL  REPUBLICAN 
CONVENTION.  —  MEETS  AT  CINCINNATI.  —  NOMINATION  OF  MR.  GREELEY.  —  ADJUST- 
MENT OF  TARIFF  ISSUES.  —  CHAGRIN  OF  FREE-TRADERS  AND  DEMOCRATS.  —  MB. 
GREELEY'S   LETTER   OF  ACCEPTANCE.  —  NATIONAL    REPUBLICAN    CONVENTION.  — 
MEETS   IN    PHILADELPHIA.  —  RENOMINATES    GENERAL   GRANT.  —  HENRY  WILSON 

NOMINATED    FOR  ViCE-PRESIDENT. —  DEMOCRATIC    NATIONAL    CONVENTION.  —  MEETS 

IN  BALTIMORE.  —  ENDORSES  GREELEY  AND  BROWN. — ACCEPTS  THE  CINCINNATI 
PLATFORM.  —  MR.  GREELEY'S  LETTER  OF  ACCEPTANCE.  —  CONTEST  BETWEEN  GRANT 
AND  GREELEY.  —  CHARACTER  OF  MR.  GREELEY.  —  His  STRENGTH  AND  HIS  WEAK- 
NESS.—  NORTH  CAROLINA  ELECTION.  —  CLAIMED  BY  BOTH  SIDES.  —  FAVORABLE  TO 
REPUBLICANS.  —  SEPTEMBER  ELECTIONS.  —  REPUBLICAN  GAINS.  — NOMINATION  OF 

O'CONNOR  AND  ADAMS.—  MR.    GREELEY'S   WESTERN  TOUR.  —  OCTOBER   ELECTIONS. 

—  STRONG  NOMINATIONS  FOR  STATE  OFFICERS.  —  ENORMOUS  MAJORITIES  FOR  GEN- 
ERAL GRANT.  —  His  OVERWHELMING  ELECTION.  —  DEATH  OF  MR.  GREELEY. 

THE  Presidential  canvass  of  1872  was  anomalous  in  its  char- 
acter. Never  before  or  since  has  a  great  party  adopted  as 
its  candidate  a  conspicuous  public  man,  who  was  not  merely  out- 
side its  own  ranks,  but  who,  in  the  thick  of  every  political  battle 
for  a  third  of  a  century,  had  been  one  of  its  most  relentless  and 
implacable  foes.  In  the  shifting  scenes  of  our  varied  partisan  con- 
tests, the  demands  of  supposed  expediency  had  often  produced 
curious  results.  Sometimes  the  natural  leaders  of  parties  had  been 
set  aside  ;  men  without  experience  and  without  attainments  had 
been  brought  forward ;  the  settled  currents  of  years  had  been 
suddenly  changed  by  the  eddy  and  whirl  of  the  moment;  but  never 
before  had  any  eccentricity  of  political  caprice  gone  so  far  as  to 
suggest  the  bitterest  antagonist  of  a  party  for  its  anointed  chief.  It 
was  the  irony  of  logic,  and  yet  it  came  to  pass  by  the  progress  of 
events  which  were  irresistibly  logical. 

The  course  of  affairs  had  been  threatening  a  formidable  division 
in  the  Republican  party.     It  was  in  some  degree  a  difference  of  pol- 

516 


REPUBLICAN  DIVISIONS  IN  MISSOURI.  517 

icy,  but  more  largely  a  clashing  of  personal  interests  and  ambitions. 
The  Liberal  Republican  movement,  as  the  effort  of  dissatisfied  par- 
tisans was  termed,  had  its  nominal  origin,  though  not  its  exciting 
cause,  in  the  State  of  Missouri  in  1870.  Missouri  had  presented 
the  complications  and  conflicts  which  embarrassed  all  the  Border 
States.  The  State  had  not  seceded,  but  tens  of  thousands  of  her 
people  had  joined  the  rebel  ranks.  To  prevent  them  from  sharing 
in  the  government  while  fighting  to  overthrow  it,  these  allies  of  the 
Rebellion  had  by  an  amendment  to  the  State  constitution  been  dis- 
qualified from  exercising  the  rights  of  citizenship.  The  demand  was 
now  made  that  these  disabilities  imposed  during  the  war  should  be 
removed.  The  Republicans,  holding  control  of  the  Legislature, 
divided  upon  this  question.  The  minority,  calling  themselves  Lib- 
erals, under  the  leadership  of  Benjamin  Gratz  Brown  and  Carl 
Schurz,  combined  with  the  Democrats,  and  passed  amendments 
which  removed  the  disqualifications.  The  same  combination,  as  a 
part  of  the  same  movement,  elected  Brown  governor.  An  alliance, 
offensive  and  defensive,  between  Brown  and  General  Frank  Blair, 
as  the  chiefs  of  the  Liberal  and  Democratic  wings,  cemented  the 
coalition,  and  gave  Missouri  over  to  Democratic  control. 

The  question  which  divided  Missouri  was  not  presented  in  the 
same  form  elsewhere.  The  disabilities  against  which  the  Liberals 
protested  were  local,  and  were  ordained  in  the  State  constitution. 
They  were  wholly  under  State  regulations.  No  such  issue  presented 
itself  in  the  National  arena.  The  laws  of  the  nation  imposed  no 
disabilities  upon  any  class  of  voters,  and  even  the  disqualification 
for  office,  which  rested  upon  those  who  had  deserted  high  public 
trust  to  join  in  the  Rebellion,  could  by  a  vote  of  Congress  be  re- 
moved. Nevertheless,  the  creed  of  the  Missouri  Liberals,  though 
little  applicable  outside  their  own  borders,  found  an  echo  far  beyond. 
Indeed,  it  was  itself  the  echo  of  earlier  demands.  Mr.  Greeley  char- 
acterized the  Republican  allies  of  the  Democrats  in  Missouri  as 
bolters,  but  he  had  long  before  sounded  his  trumpet  cry  of  "  univer- 
sal amnesty  and  impartial  suffrage."  With  a  political  philosophy 
which  is  full  of  interest  and  suggestion  in  view  of  his  own  im- 
pending experiment,  he  had  in  1868  advised  the  Democrats,  if 
they  did  not  nominate  Mr.  Pendleton  on  an  extreme  Democratic 
platform,  to  go  to  the  other  extreme  and  take  Chief  Justice  Chase 
on  a  platform  of  amnesty  and  suffrage.  He  did  not  think  they  could 
succeed  by  any  such  manoeuvre ;  but  he  believed  it  would  commit 


518  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Democracy  to  a  new  departure,  and  be  a  long  stride  in  the  direc- 
tion of  loyalty  and  good  government.  If  other  leaders  did  not 
share  his  faith,  not  a  few  of  them  accepted  his  creed.  Mr.  Greeley's 
zealous  and  powerful  advocacy  had  impressed  it  upon  many  minds 
as  the  true  corner-stone  of  Reconstruction. 

But  this  was  obviously  not  a  sufficient  cause  for  division  in  the 
Republican  ranks.  Whatever  special  significance  it  might  have 
possessed  at  an  earlier  period,  the  course  of  events  had  deprived 
it  of  its  distinctive  force.  It  was  now  a  matter  of  sentiment  rather 
than  of  practical  efficacy.  The  readiness  of  Congress  in  responding 
to  every  application  for  the  removal  of  disabilities  was  itself  a  gener- 
ous amnesty.  The  Fifteenth  Amendment  had  irrevocably  established 
the  principle  of  equal  suffrage.  With  this  practical  advance,  the 
demand  of  Liberalism  did  not  leave  room  for  any  s&rious  difference. 
More  potent  causes  were  at  work.  The  administration  of  President 
Grant  in  some  of  its  public  measures  had  furnished  pretexts,  and 
in  some  of  its  political  dispensations  had  supplied  reasons,  for  dis- 
content in  various  Republican  quarters.  The  pretexts  were  loudly 
emphasized :  the  reasons,  more  powerful  in  their  effect,  were  less 
plainly  and  directly  proclaimed.  The  former  related  to  questions 
of  public  policy  and  to  differences  of  opinion  which  would  hardly 
have  been  irreconcilable :  the  latter  sprang  from  personal  disappoint- 
ments and  involved  the  rivalry  of  personal  interests,  which  through- 
out history  have  been  the  pregnant  source  of  the  bitterest  partisan 
contention. 

The  Liberals  vigorously  denounced  what  they  characterized  as 
the  military  rule  of  General  Grant.  They  criticised  and  condemned 
the  personal  phases  of  the  Administration :  —  they  repeated  the 
Democratic  charge  that  it  was  grasping  undue  power ;  they  decried 
the  channels  through  which  its  influence  was  felt  in  the  South ;  they 
complained  that  its  patronage  was  appropriated  by  leaders  inimical 
to  themselves ;  they  saw  a  strong  organization  growing  up,  with 
its  centre  in  the  Senate  and  combining  the  great  States,  from  which 
they  were  somewhat  offensively  excluded.  The  deposition  of  Sen- 
ator Sumner  from  the  chairmanship  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations  had  estranged  him  and  alienated  his  friends. 

In  the  State  of  New  York  the  personal  currents  were  especially 
marked.  Governor  Fen  ton  had,  during  his  two  terms,  from  1865  to 
1869,  acquired  the  political  leadership,  and  held  it  until  Mr.  Conk- 
ling's  rising  power  had  created  a  strong  rivalry.  The  struggle  of 


REPUBLICAN  FACTIONS  IN  NEW  YORK.  519 

these  antagonistic  interests  appeared  in  the  State  Convention  of  1870, 
when  Mr.  Greeley  was  defeated  for  governor,  and  Stewart  L.  Wood- 
ford  was  nominated.  In  1871  it  appeared  again  in  still  more  deci- 
sive form.  Through  the  contention  of  these  opposing  wings,  two 
general  committees  and  two  organizations  of  the  party  had  been 
created  in  the  city  of  New  York,  each  claiming  the  seal  of  regu- 
larity, and  each  sending  a  full  delegation  to  the  State  Convention. 
One  represented  the  friends  of  Mr.  Greeley  and  Mr.  Fenton:  the 
other  represented  the  friends  of  Mr.  Conkling.  The  importance  and 
significance  of  the  contest  were  fully  recognized.  It  was  a  decisive 
trial  of  strength  between  two  divisions.  Mr.  Fenton  and  Mr.  Conk- 
ling,  colleagues  in  the  Senate,  were  both  present  upon  the  scene  of 
battle.  Mr.  Fenton  had  skill  and  experience  in  political  manage- 
ment: Mr.  Conkling  was  bold  and  aggressive  in  leadership.  Mr. 
Fenton  guided  his  partisans  from  the  council  chamber  through  ready 
lieutenants :  Mr.  Conkling  was  upon  the  floor  of  the  Convention  and 
took  command  in  person.  After  several  persuasive  appeals,  the  Con- 
vention was  about  to  compromise  the  difficulty  and  admit  both  dele- 
gations with  an  equal  voice  and  vote,  when  Mr.  Conkling  took  the 
floor  and  by  a  powerful  speech  succeeded  in  changing  its  purpose. 
Upon  his  resolute  call  the  Fenton-Greeley  delegation  was  excluded, 
and  his  own  friends  were  left  in  full  control  of  the  Convention  and 
of  the  party  organization. 

Under  ordinary  circumstances  such  a  schism  would  have  seemed 
altogether  unfortunate.  At  this  juncture  it  looked  peculiarly  bold 
and  hazardous,  for  the  "  Tweed  Ring  "  had  complete  control  of  New 
York;  and  apparently  the  only  hope,  and  that  a  feeble  one,  of 
rescuing  the  city  and  State  from  its  despotic  and  unscrupulous  thral- 
dom was  in  a  united  Republican  party.  But  the  "  Tweed  Ring,"  in 
the  very  height  of  its  arrogant  and  defiant  power,  was  on  the  eve 
of  utter  overthrow  and  annihilation.  The  opportune  exposure  and 
conclusive  proof  of  its  colossal  frauds  and  robberies  came  just  then. 
The  effect  of  the  startling  revelation  was  such  that  the  most  absolute 
political  oligarchy  ever  organized  in  this  country  crumbled  to  dust 
in  a  moment,  and  the  Republicans  carried  New  York  for  the  first 
time  since  1866. 

The  unexpected  success  of  1871  crowning  the  triumph  in  the 
State  Convention  fully  confirmed  the  power  of  Mr.  Conkling  as 
the  leader  of  the  party  in  New  York.  Mr.  Greeley  and  his  follow- 
ers, already  opposed  to  the  National  Administration,  now  gave  way 


520  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

to  a  still  more  unrestrained  hostility.  All  the  antipathy  which 
they  felt  for  their  antagonists  in  the  State  was  transferred  to  the 
President.  They  ascribed  their  defeat  to  the  free  exercise  of  the 
Federal  power ;  and  the  indictment,  which  they  had  long  been  fram- 
ing, was  made  more  severe  from  their  renewed  personal  disappoint- 
ment. In  this  temper  and  position  they  were  not  alone.  Republi- 
cans of  prominence  in  other  States,  either  had  similar  grievances,  or 
shared  the  same  view  of  the  tendency  at  Washington.  The  discon- 
tent with  the  National  Administration  was  stimulated  and  increased 
by  powerful  journals  like  the  New -York  Tribune,  the  Chicago  Tribune, 
and  the  Cincinnati  Commercial. 

The  drift  of  events  placed  the  protesting  Republicans  in  an  em- 
barrassing situation.  The  renomination  of  General  Grant  was  seen 
to  be  inevitable;  and  they  were  left  to  determine  whether  they 
would  remain  in  the  party  and  acquiesce  in  what  they  were  unable 
to  prevent,  or  whether  they  would  try  from  the  outside  the  opposi- 
tion which  was  impotent  from  the  inside.  They  were  thus  driven  by 
events  to  extend  into  the  National  field  the  political  experiment 
which  had  been  successfully  undertaken  in  the  State  of  Missouri. 
The  movement  assumed  apparently  large  proportions,  and  for  a  time 
wore  a  threatening  look.  On  the  surface  it  was  more  wide-spread 
than  the  Buffalo  Free-soil  revolt  which  defeated  the  Democratic 
party  in  1848 ;  but  its  development  was  different,  and  the  condi- 
tions were  wholly  dissimilar.  Now,  as  then,  there  was  a  curious 
blending  of  principle  and  of  personal  resentment,  but  the  issue  pre- 
sented was  less  enkindling  than  the  sentiment  of  resistance  to  the 
aggressions  of  slavery.  The  element  of  opposition  in  the  impending 
schism  was,  therefore,  not  as  strong  at  the  decisive  point  as  in  the 
earlier  outbreak. 


The  National  Convention  of  the  Liberal  Republicans,  which  was 
the  first  public  step  in  the  fusion  with  the  Democracy,  was  held  at 
Cincinnati  on  the  first  day  of  May  (1872),  under  a  call  emanating 
from  the  Liberal  State  Convention  of  Missouri.  There  were  no 
organizations  to  send  delegates,  and  it  was  necessarily  called  as  a 
mass  convention.  The  attendance  was  large,  especially  from  the 
States  immediately  adjoining  the  place  of  meeting  and  from  New 
York.  It  was  clear  that  with  an  aggregate  so  large  and  numbers 
so  disproportionate  from  the  different  States  the  disorganized  and 


NATIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  LIBERALS.  521 

irresponsible  mass  must  be  resolved  into  some  sort  of  represen- 
tative convention,  and  those  present  from  the  several  States  were 
left  to  choose  delegates  in  their  own  way.  The  New-York  delega- 
tion included  Judge  Henry  R.  Selden,  General  John  Cochrane, 
Theodore  Tilton,  William  Dorsheimer  (who  two  years  later  was 
elected  Lieutenant-Go vernor  on  the  Democratic  ticket  with  Samuel 
J.  Tilden),  and  Waldo  Hutchins,  who  has  since  been  a  Democratic 
member  of  Congress.  —  David  Dudley  Field,  though  participating 
in  the  preliminary  consultations,  was  excluded  from  the  delegation 
through  the  influence  of  Mr.  Greeley's  friends,  because  of  his  free- 
trade  attitude. 

—  Other  leading  spirits  were  Colonel  McClure  and  John  Hickman 
of  Pennsylvania  ;  Stanley  Matthews,  George  Hoadly,  and  Judge  R. 
P.  Spalding,  of  Ohio;  Carl  Schurz,  William  M.  Grosvenor,  and 
Joseph  Pulitzer,  of  Missouri;  John  Wentworth,  Leonard  Swett, 
Lieutenant-Governor  Koerner,  and  Horace  White,  of  Illinois;  Cas- 
sius  M.  Clay  of  Kentucky;  George  W.  Julian  of  Indiana;  Frank 
W.  Bird  and  Edward  Atkinson  of  Massachusetts;  David  A.  Wells 
of  Connecticut ;  and  John  D.  Defrees  of  the  District  of  Columbia. 
Men  less  conspicuous  than  these  were  present  in  large  numbers  from 
many  States.  —  The  proportion  of  free-traders  outside  of  New  York 
was  a  marked  feature  of  the  assemblage,  and  had  an  important  bear- 
ing on  some  of  the  subsequent  proceedings.  From  New  York,  also, 
a  number  were  present,  and  they  were  of  course  opposed  to  Mr. 
Greeley ;  but  Mr.  Greeley's  friends  succeeded  in  keeping  them  off 
the  list  of  delegates. 

Stanley  Matthews  was  made  temporary  chairman.  In  his  brief 
speech  he  said  that  those  who  had  assembled  in  this  gathering  were 
still  Republicans,  and  he  urged  in  justification  of  their  independent 
action  that  the  forces  in  control  of  the  party  machinery  had  per- 
verted it  to  personal  and  unwarrantable  ends.  "As  the  war  has 
ended,"  he  continued,  "so  ought  military  rule  and  military  princi- 
ples." This  imputation  of  a  military  character  to  the  National 
Administration  was  the  key-note  of  all  the  expressions.  Mr.  Carl 
Schurz  was  the  leading  spirit  of  the  Convention,  and  amplified  the 
same  thought  in  his  more  elaborate  address  as  permanent  President. 

The  platform  was  the  object  of  much  labor,  as  well  as  the  theme 
of  much  pride,  on  the  part  of  its  authors.  It  was  designed  to  be  a 
succinct  statement  and  a  complete  justification  of  the  grounds  on 
which  the  movement  rested.  It  started  from  the  Republican  posi- 


522  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

tion  and  aimed  to  be  Republican  in  tone  and  principle,  only  mark- 
ing out  the  path  on  which  Liberal  thought  diverged  from  what 
were  characterized  as  the  ruling  Republican  tendencies.  It  recog- 
nized the  equality  of  all  men  before  the  law,  and  the  duty  of 
equal  and  exact  justice ;  it  pledged  fidelity  to  the  Union,  to  emanci- 
pation, to  enfranchisement,  and  opposition  to  any  re-opening  of  the 
questions  settled  by  the  new  Amendments  to  the  Constitution ;  it 
demanded  the  immediate  and  absolute  removal  of  all  disabilities 
imposed  on  account  of  the  Rebellion;  it  declared  that  local  self- 
government  with  impartial  suffrage  would  guard  the  rights  of  all 
citizens  more  securely  than  any  centralized  power,  and  insisted  upon 
the  supremacy  of  the  civil  over  the  military  authorities ;  it  laid  great 
stress  upon  the  abuse  of  the  civil  service  and  upon  the  necessity 
of  reform,  and  declared  that  no  President  ought  to  be  a  candidate  for 
re-election ;  it  denounced  repudiation,  opposed  further  land-grants, 
and  demanded  a  speedy  return  to  specie  payments. 

On  these  questions  there  was  no  division  in  the  Liberal  ranks. 
But  there  was  another  issue,  which  caused  a  sharper  controversy 
and  came  to  a  lame  and  impotent  conclusion.  The  large  number 
of  free-traders  who  participated  in  the  Convention  has  been  noted. 
Indeed,  its  call  emanated  from  free-traders,  and  outside  of  New  York 
free-traders  constituted  its  controlling  forces.  The  Missouri  group 
was  unanimously  and  especially  devoted  to  free  trade ;  and  the  Illi- 
nois, Ohio,  and  New-England  influences  in  the  Convention  were  for 
the  most  part  in  full  sympathy  with  it.  The  New- York  element, 
which  centred  in  Mr.  Greeley,  shared  his  view  of  protection.  What- 
ever other  reasons  he  might  have  had  for  joining  the  movement,  his 
lifelong  and  conspicuous  championship  of  Protection  would  have 
made  it  impossible  for  him  to  sustain  any  demonstration  against  that 
great  doctrine.  Even  before  his  nomination  was  anticipated  -he  was 
the  most  important  factor  in  the  revolt  against  the  Administration, 
and  any  division  (  of  a  division)  which  sacrificed  or  endangered  the 
chief  pillar  of  strength  seemed  peculiarly  fatuous  and  perilous. 

Nevertheless  the  free-traders  made  a  persistent  effort  to  enforce 
their  views,  and  a  strenuous  struggle  ensued.  The  policy  which 
Mr.  Greeley  had  recommended  finally  prevailed.  He  knew  there  was 
a  radical  difference  among  the  Liberals  on  this  question.  He  could 
not  surrender  his  position,  and  the  free-traders  would  not  surrender 
their  position.  He  therefore  proposed  that  they  should  acknowl- 
edge the  differences  and  waive  the  question.  This  suggestion  was 


BALLOTING  FOR  PRESIDENTIAL  CANDIDATE.  523 

accepted ;  and  a  compromise  was  effected  by  declaring  that  the  dif- 
ferences were  irreconcilable,  remitting  the  subject  to  the  people  in 
their  Congressional  districts  and  to  the  decision  of  Congress  free 
from  Executive  interference  or  dictation.  Thus  the  only  agreement 
reached  was  an  agreement  to  disagree. 

With  this  difficulty  adjusted,  the  Convention  was  ready  to  pro- 
ceed to  the  choice  of  a  candidate.  The  struggle  had  been  actively 
in  progress  for  several  days,  and  had  developed  sharp  antagonisms. 
In  its  earlier  stages  it  bore  the  appearance  of  a  contest  between 
Judge  David  Davis  and  Charles  Francis  Adams.  Judge  Davis  had 
long  been  credited  with  aspirations  and  with  some  elements  of  politi- 
cal strength.  He  had  been  Lincoln's  friend;  he  was  rich,  honest, 
and  popular.  He  had  watched  politics  from  the  Supreme  Bench 
with  judicial  equipoise  and  partisan  instincts,  and  by  many  discern- 
ing men  was  regarded  as  a  highly  eligible  candidate.  Mr.  Adams 
was  strongly  pressed  on  different  grounds.  Unlike  Judge  Davis,  he 
was  austere,  cold,  even  repellent  in  his  manner ;  but  it  was  urged 
that  the  traditions  of  his  name  and  his  distinguished  diplomatic  ser- 
vices would  appeal  to  the  judgment  of  the  people  and  take  from  the 
Republican  party  some  of  its  best  elements.  He  was  earnestly  sup- 
ported by  many  of  the  strongest  Liberals,  who  felt  that  their  only 
hope  of  success  lay  in  the  selection  of  a  candidate  who  was  experi- 
enced in  public  life,  and  who  could  inspire  public  confidence. 

The  supporters  of  Mr.  Adams  displayed  violent  hostility  to 
Judge  Davis.  They  charged  his  friends  with  bringing  a  great  body 
of  hirelings  from  Illinois,  and  with  attempting  to  "  pack  "  the  Con- 
vention,—  with  resorting,  in  short,  to  the  alleged  practices  of  the 
Republicans  who  were  still  opposing  the  Democratic  party.  They 
announced  that  even  if  Judge  Davis  should  be  nominated  they 
would  not  sustain  him.  This  influential  and  unyielding  opposition 
was  fatal  to  the  Illinois  candidate.  As  the  Davis  canvass  declined 
the  Greeley  sentiment  increased,  and  it  soon  became  evident  that  the 
contest  would  lie  between  Adams  and  Greeley.  On  the  first  ballot 
the  vote  stood,  Adams  205,  Greeley  147,  Trumbull  110,  Gratz  Brown 
95,  Davis  92£,  Curtin  62,  Chase  2£.  The  minor  candidates  were 
withdrawn  as  the  voting  proceeded,  and  on  the  sixth  ballot  Greeley 
had  332,  Adams  324,  Chief  Justice  Chase  32,  Trumbull  19.  There 
was  at  once  a  rapid  change  to  Greeley,  and  the  conclusion  was  not 
long  delayed.  He  was  declared  by  formal  vote  to  be  the  nominee  of 
the  Convention.  For  the  Vice-Presidency,  Gratz  Brown,  Senator 


524  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Trumbull,  George  W.  Julian,  and  Gilbert  C.  Walker  were  placed 
in  nomination.  Mr.  Brown  was  successful  on  the  second  ballot. 

The  result  of  the  balloting  created  surprise  and  disappointment. 
Mr.  Greeley's  name  had  not  been  seriously  discussed  until  the  mem- 
bers assembled  in  Cincinnati,  and  no  scheme  of  the  Liberal  man- 
agers had  contemplated  his  nomination.  It  was  evident  from  the 
first  that  with  his  striking  individuality,  his  positive  views,  and  his 
combative  career,  he  had  both  strength  and  weakness  as  a  candi- 
date ;  but  whatever  his  merits  or  demerits,  his  selection  was  out  of 
the  reckoning  of  those  who  had  formed  the  Liberal  organization.  It 
was  certainly  a  singular  and  unexpected  result,  that  a  Convention 
which  owed  its  formal  call  to  a  body  of  active  and  aggressive  free- 
traders, should  commit  its  standard  to  the  foremost  champion  of 
Protection  in  the  country. 

But  there  was  another  and  still  more  important  element  of  incon- 
gruity—  another  reason  why  the  nomination  was  foreign  to  the 
whole  theory  of  the  political  experiment  of  1872.  The  indispensable 
condition  attaching  to  the  Liberal  plan  was  its  endorsement  by  the 
Democracy.  This  demanded  the  selection  of  a  candidate  who,  while 
representing  the  Liberal  Republican  policy,  would  be  acceptable  to 
the  Democratic  allies.  No  man  seemed  so  little  likely  to  fulfil  this 
requirement  as  Mr.  Greeley.  From  the  hour  when  he  first  entered 
political  life  and  acquired  prominence  in  the  wild  Whig  canvass  for 
Harrison  and  Tyler  in  1840,  he  had  waged  incessant  and  unsparing  war 
against  the  Democrats.  He  had  assailed  them  with  all  the  weapons 
in  his  well-filled  armory  of  denunciation ;  and  not  only  had  every 
conspicuous  Democratic  leader  received  his  stalwart  blows,  but  the 
whole  party  had  repeatedly  felt  the  force  of  his  fearless  and  master- 
ful onset. 

There  was  naturally  great  curiosity  to  see  how  his  nomination 
would  be  received :  first,  by  the  projectors  of  the  Liberal  revolt,  and 
second,  by  the  Democracy.  Most  of  the  Liberals  promptly  acqui- 
esced, though  a  few  protested.  Especially  among  the  Ohio  represen- 
tatives there  was  great  discontent.  Stanley  Matthews  humorously 
and  regretfully  admitted  that  he  was  "not  a  success  at  politics." 
Judge  Hoadly  published  a  card  calling  the  Cincinnati  result  "  the 
alliance  of  Tammany  and  Blair,"  but  still  hoping  for  some  way  of 
escape  from  Grant.  Most  of  the  German  Liberals  rejected  the  ticket, 
doubtless  finding  other  objections  emphasized  by  their  dissent  from 
Mr.  Greeley's  well-known  attitude  on  sumptuary  legislation.  The 


EMBARRASSMENT  OF  THE  DEMOCRACY.        525 

free-trade  Liberals  of  New  York  held  a  meeting  of  protest,  presided 
over  by  William  Cullen  Bryant,  and  addressed  by  David  A.  Wells, 
Edward  Atkinson,  and  others  who  had  participated  in  the  Cincinnati 
Convention.  But  this  opposition  possessed  little  importance.  The 
positive  political  force  which  had  entered  into  the  Liberal  movement 
stood  fast,  and  the  really  important  question  related  to  the  temper 
and  action  of  the  Democrats. 

Their  first  feeling  was  one  of  chagrin  and  resentment.  They 
had  encouraged  the  Republican  revolt,  with  sanguine  hope  of  a 
result  which  they  could  cordially  accept,  and  they  were  deeply  mor- 
tified by  an  issue  whose  embarrassment  for  themselves  could  not  be 
concealed.  They  had  counted  on  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Adams, 
Judge  Davis,  Senator  Trumbull,  or  some  moderate  Republican  of 
that  type,  whom  they  could  adopt  without  repugnance.  The  unex- 
pected selection  of  their  life-long  antagonist  confounded  their  plans 
and  put  them  to  open  shame.  At  the  outset,  the  majority  of  the 
Democratic  journals  of  the  North  either  deplored  and  condemned 
the  result  or  adopted  a  non-committal  tone.  Some  of  them,  like  the 
New-York  World,  emphatically  declared  that  the  Democracy  could 
not  ratify  a  choice  which  would  involve  a  stultification  so  humiliat- 
ing and  so  complete.  A  few  shrewder  journals,  of  which  the 
Cincinnati  Enquirer  and  the  Saint-Louis  Republican  were  the  most 
conspicuous,  took  the  opposite  course  and  from  the  beginning  advo- 
cated the  indorsement  of  Mr.  Greeley. 

In  the  South  the  nomination  was  received  with  more  favor.  Mr. 
Greeley's  readiness  to  go  on  the  bail-bond  of  Jefferson  Davis,  his  ear- 
nest championship  of  universal  amnesty,  and  his  expressed  sympathy 
with  the  grievances  of  the  old  ruling  element  of  the  slave  States, 
had  created  a  kindly  impression  in  that  section.  The  prompt  utter- 
ances of  the  Southern  journals  indicated  that  no  obstacle  would  be 
encountered  in  the  Democratic  ranks  below  the  Potomac.  At  the 
North,  as  the  discussion  proceeded,  it  became  more  and  more  evident 
that  however  reluctant  the  party  might  be,  it  really  had  no  alterna- 
tive but  to  accept  Mr.  Greeley.  It  had  committed  itself  so  fully  to 
the  Liberal  movement  that  it  could  not  now  abandon  it  without  cer- 
tain disaster.  Its  only  possible  hope  of  defeating  the  Republican 
party  lay  in  the  Republican  revolt,  and  the  revolt  could  be  fomented 
and  prolonged  only  by  imparting  to  it  prestige  and  power.  The 
Liberal  leaders  and  journals  did  not  hesitate  to  say  that  if  it  came  to 
a  choice  between  Grant  and  a  Democrat,  they  would  support  Grant. 


526  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

With  this  avowal  they  were  masters  of  the  situation  so  far  as  the 
Democracy  was  concerned,  and  the  Democratic  sentiment,  which  at 
first  shrank  from  Greeley,  soon  became  resigned  to  his  candidacy. 


While  the  work  of  reconciling  the  free-traders  to  the  nomination 
of  a  Protectionist,  and  of  inducing  the  Democracy  to  accept  an  anti- 
slavery  leader,  was  in  full  progress,  the  Republican  National  Con- 
vention met  at  Philadelphia  on  the  5th  of  June.  The  venerable  Ger- 
ritt  Smith  led  the  delegation  from  New  York,  with  William  Orton, 
Horace  B.  Claflin,  Stewart  L.  Woodford,  William  E.  Dodge,  and 
John  A.  Griswold  among  his  associates.  Governor  Hayes  came  from 
Ohio ;  General  Burnside  from  Rhode  Island ;  Governor  Hawley 
from  Connecticut ;  Governor  Claflin  and  Alexander  H.  Rice  from 
Massachusetts ;  Henry  S.  Lane  and  Governor  Conrad  Baker  from  In- 
diana ;  Governor  Cullom  from  Illinois ;  James  Speed  from  Kentucky ; 
Amos  T.  Akerman  from  Georgia  ;  John  B.  Henderson  from  Missouri; 
William  A.  Howard  from  Michigan ;  Ex-Senator  Cattell  and  Cort- 
landt  Parker  from  New  Jersey ;  Governor  Fairchild  from  Wisconsin ; 
John  R.  Lynch,  the  colored  orator,  from  Mississippi ;  Morton  McMi- 
chael,  Glenni  W.  Scofield,  and  William  H.  Koontz  from  Pennsylva- 
nia ;  Thomas  Settle  from  North  Carolina ;  James  L.  Orr  from  South 
Carolina. 

Mr.  McMichael,  whose  genial  face  and  eloquent  voice  were  always 
welcome  in  a  Republican  Convention,  was  selected  as  temporary  chair- 
man. "  The  malcontents,"  said  he,  "  who  recently  met  at  Cincinnati 
were  without  a  constituency ;  the  Democrats  who  are  soon  to  meet  at 
Baltimore  will  be  without  a  principle.  The  former,  having  no  motive 
in  common  but  personal  disappointment,  attempted  a  fusion  of  repel- 
lent elements  which  has  resulted  in  explosion  ;  the  latter,  degraded 
from  the  high  estate  they  once  held,  propose  an  abandonment  of 
their  identity  which  means  death."  The  only  business  appointed 
for  the  first  day  was  speedily  completed,  and  left  ample  time  for 
public  addresses.  Gerritt  Smith,  General  Logan,  Senator  Morton, 
Governor  Oglesby,  and  others  made  vigorous  party  appeals,  and  deliv- 
ered enthusiastic  eulogies  upon  General  Grant.  Among  the  speakers 
were  several  colored  men.  It  was  the  first  National  Convention  in 
which  representatives  of  their  race  had  appeared  as  citizens,  and  the 
force  and  aptitude  they  displayed  constituted  one  of  the  striking  fear 


NATIONAL  REPUBLICAN  CONTENTION.  527 

tures  of  the  occasion.  William  H.  Gray  of  Arkansas,  R.  JB.  Elliott 
of  South  Carolina,  and  John  R.  Lynch  of  Mississippi  made  effective 
speeches  which  were  heartily  applauded. 

With  the  completion  of  the  organization,  by  the  choice  of  Judge 
Settle  of  North  Carolina  as  permanent  president,  the  Convention 
was  ready  on  the  second  day  for  the  nominations ;  and  on  the  roll- 
call  General  Grant  was  named  for  President  without  a  dissenting 
vote.  Then  came  the  contest  in  which  the  chief  interest  centred. 
Mr.  Colfax  had,  at  the  beginning  of  the  year,  written  a  letter 
announcing  that  he  would  not  be  a  candidate  for  re-election  as  Vice- 
President.  He  had  undoubtedly  alienated  some  of  the  friendship 
and  popularity  he  had  so  long  enjoyed.  Under  these  circumstances 
Senator  Henry  Wilson  of  Massachusetts  appeared  as  a  candidate, 
and  made  rapid  headway  in  party  favor.  He  had  always  been  a 
man  of  the  people,  and,  though  not  shining  with  brilliant  qualities, 
had  acquired  influence  and  respect  through  his  robust  sense,  his 
sound  judgment,  and  his  practical  ability.  In  ready  debate,  and  in 
the  clear  and  forcible  presentation  of  political  issues,  he  held  a  high 
place  among  Republican  leaders.  Mr.  Colfax  had  recalled  his  with- 
drawal, and  as  the  Convention  approached,  the  contest  was  so  even 
and  well  balanced  as  to  stimulate  both  interest  and  effort. 

The  struggle  was  practically  determined,  however,  in  the  pre- 
liminary cau cusses  of  two  or  three  of  the  large  State  delegations. 
When  the  roll-call  was  completed  on  the  first  and  only  ballot,  Wilson 
had  364£  votes,  and  Colfax  had  321£.  The  22  votes  of  Virginia  had 
been  cast  for  Governor  Lewis,  the  26  of  Tennessee  for  Horace  May- 
nard,  and  the  16  of  Texas  for  Governor  Davis.  The  Virginia  delega- 
tion was  the  first  to  get  the  floor  and  change  to  Wilson,  thus  securing 
his  nomination ;  and  the  others  promptly  followed.  Among  the 
powerful  influences  which  controlled  the  result  were  the  combination 
and  zealous  activity  of  the  Washington  newspaper  correspondents 
against  Mr.  Colfax,  who  had  in  some  way  estranged  a  friendship  that 
for  many  years  had  been  most  helpful  to  him. 

The  platform  came  from  a  committee,  including  among  its  mem- 
bers General  Hawley,  Governor  Hayes,  Glenni  W.  Scofield,  Ex- 
Attorney-General  Speed,  Mr.  James  N.  Matthews,  then  of  the  Buffalo 
Commercial,  and  other  representative  men.  That  the  year  was  largely 
one  of  personal  politics,  rather  than  of  clear,  sharp,  overmastering 
issues,  might  be  inferred  from  the  scope  and  character  of  the  resolu- 
tions. It  was  an  hour  for  maintaining  what  had  been  gained,  rather 


528  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

than  for  advancing  to  new  demands.  Equal  suffrage  had  been  es- 
tablished, and  the  danger  of  repudiation  which  had  threatened  the 
country  in  1868  had  apparently  passed  away.  The  necessity  and 
duty  of  preparing  for  specie  resumption,  which  soon  after  engrossed 
public  attention,  were  not  yet  apprehended  or  appreciated.  Be- 
tween the  two  periods  the  chief  work  was  that  of  practically 
enforcing  the  settlements  which  had  been  ordained  in  the  Constitu- 
tional Amendments. 

The  platform,  after  reciting  the  chapter  of  Republican  achieve- 
ments, declared  "that  complete  liberty  and  exact  equality  in  the 
enjoyment  of  all  civil,  political,  and  public  rights  should  be  estab- 
lished and  effectually  maintained  throughout  the  Union  by  efficient 
and  appropriate  Federal  and  State  legislation."  It  asserted  that 
"the  recent  amendments  to  the  National  Constitution  should  be 
cordially  sustained  because  they  are  right;  not  merely  tolerated 
because  they  are  law"  It  answered  the  Liberal  arraignment  of  the 
civil  service  by  declaring  that  "any  system  of  the  civil  service 
under  which  the  subordinate  positions  of  the  Government  are  re- 
wards for  mere  party  zeal  is  fatally  demoralizing,  and  we  therefore 
favor  a  reform  of  the  system  by  laws  which  shall  abolish  the  evils  of 
patronage."  Besides  these  points,  the  Republican  platform  opposed 
further  land-grants  to  corporations,  recommended  the  abolition  of  the 
franking  privilege,  approved  further  pensions,  sustained  the  Protec- 
tive tariff,  and  justified  Congress  and  the  President  in  their  measures 
for  the  suppression  of  violent  and  treasonable  organizations  in  the 
South. 


The  Democratic  National  Convention  met  at  Baltimore  on  the 
9th  of  July.  The  intervening  two  months  had  demonstrated  that 
it  could  do  nothing  but  follow  the  Cincinnati  Convention.  The 
delegations  were  distinctly  representative.  New  York  sent  Governor 
Hoffman,  General  Slocum,  S.  S.  Cox,  Clarkson  N.  Potter,  and  John 
Kelly.  Among  the  Pennsylvania  delegates  were  William  A.  Wallace, 
Samuel  J.  Randall,  and  Lewis  Cassidy.  Henry  B.  Payne  came  from 
Ohio ;  Thomas  F.  Bayard  from  Delaware ;  Montgomery  Blair  from 
Maryland ;  Henry  G.  Davis  from  West  Virginia ;  Senator  Casserly 
and  Ex-Senator  Gwin  from  California;  Charles  R.  English  and 
William  H.  Barnum  from  Connecticut;  Senator  Stockton  and  Ex- 
Governor  Randolph  from  New  Jersey.  The  Confederate  forces  were 


DEMOCRATIC   NATIONAL  CONVENTION.  529 

present  in  full  strength.  Generals  Gordon,  Colquitt,  and  Hardeman 
came  from  Georgia ;  Fitz-Hugh  Lee,  Bradley  T.  Johnson,  and  Thomas 
S.  Bocock  from  Virginia  ;  General  John  S.  Williams  from  Kentucky ; 
Ex-Governor  Vance  from  North  Carolina ;  Ex-Governor  Aiken  from 
South  Carolina ;  John  H,  Reagan  from  Texas ;  and  George  G.  Vest 
from  Missouri.  Mr.  August  Belmont,  after  twelve  years  of  service 
and  defeat,  appeared  for  the  last  time  as  chairman  of  the  National 
Democratic  Committee.  Thomas  Jefferson  Randolph  of  Virginia 
(grandson  of  the  author  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence),  a  ven- 
erable and  imposing  figure,  was  made  temporary  chairman,  and  Ex- 
Senator  James  R.  Doolittle  of  Wisconsin  permanent  president.  Mr. 
Doolittle,  having  been  first  a  Democrat,  then  a  Republican,  then  a 
Democrat  again,  could  well  interpret  the  duplicate  significance  of  the 
present  movement ;  and  he  made  a  long  speech  devoted  to  that  end. 

On  the  second  day  the  Committee  on  Resolutions  reported  the 
Cincinnati  platform  without  addition  or  qualification.  There  was 
something  grim  and  grotesque  in  the  now  demonstrated  purpose  of 
the  Democratic  Convention  to  accept  the  platform  which  Mr.  Greeley 
had  constructed  with  especial  regard  for  the  tender  sensibilities  of 
the  Liberal  Republicans.  While  the  Democrats  as  a  body  had  per- 
sistently opposed  emancipation,  and  regarded  it  as  a  great  political 
wrong,  the  party  now  resolved  to  maintain  it.  Hostile  throughout 
all  its  ranks  to  any  improvement  in  the  status  of  the  negro,  they  now 
determined  in  favor  of  his  "enfranchisement."  Resisting  at  every 
step  the  passage  of  the  Thirteenth,  Fourteenth,  and  Fifteenth  Amend- 
ments to  the  Constitution,  they  now  resolved  to  "oppose  any  re- 
opening of  the  questions  that  have  been  settled  "  by  the  adoption  of 
these  great  changes  in  the  organic  law.  With  the  Southern  States 
dominant  in  the  Convention,  their  delegates  (all  former  slave- 
holders and  at  a  later  period  engaged  in  rebellion  in  order  to  per- 
petuate slavery)  now  resolved  with  docile  acquiescence  to  "  recognize 
the  equality  of  all  men  before  the  law ;  and  the  duty  of  the  Govern- 
ment, in  its  dealings  with  the  people,  to  mete  out  equal  and  exact 
justice  to  all,  of  whatever  nativity,  race,  color,  or  persuasion,  religious 
or  political." 

The  Confederate  leaders,  still  sore  and  angry  over  their  failure 
to  break  up  the  Union,  now  declared  that  they  remembered  "  with 
gratitude  the  heroism  and  sacrifices  of  the  soldiers  and  sailors  of  the 
Republic,"  and  that  no  act  of  the  Democratic  party  "  should  ever 
detract  from  their  justly  earned  fame,  nor  withhold  the  full  reward  of 
VOL.  II.  34 


530  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

their  patriotism."  Hitherto  viewing  the  public  debt  as  the  price  of 
their  subjugation,  they  now  declared  that  "  the  public  credit  must 
be  sacredly  maintained ; "  and  they  heartily  denounced  "  repudiation 
in  every  form  and  guise."  In  their  determination  to  make  a  com- 
plete coalition  with  the  other  wing  of  Mr.  Greeley's  supporters,  the 
Confederate  Democrats  determined  to  accept  any  test  that  might 
be  imposed  upon  them,  to  endure  any  humiliation  that  was  needful, 
to  assert  and  accept  any  and  every  inconsistency  with  their  former 
faith  and  practice.  It  is  somewhat  interesting  to  compare  the  plat- 
form to  which  the  Democrats  assented  in  1872  with  any  they  had 
ever  before  adopted,  or  with  the  record  of  their  senators  and  repre- 
sentatives in  Congress  upon  all  the  public  questions  at  issue  during 
the  years  immediately  preceding  the  Convention. 

The  report  which  committed  the  Democracy  to  so  radical  a 
revolution  in  its  platform  of  principles  met  with  protest  from  only 
an  inconsiderable  number  of  the  delegates,  and  was  adopted  by  a 
vote  of  670  to  62.  The  Convention  was  now  ready  for  the  nomina- 
tions. It  had  been  plain  for  some  weeks  that  the  Cincinnati  ticket 
would  be  accepted.  The  only  question  was  whether  the  Democratic 
Convention  should  formally  nominate  Greeley  and  Brown,  or  whether 
it  should  simply  indorse  them  without  making  them  the  regular 
Democratic  candidates.  It  was  urged  on  the  one  hand  that  to  put 
the  formal  seal  of  Democracy  on  them  might  repel  some  Republican 
votes  which  would  otherwise  be  secured.  It  was  answered  on  the 
other  hand  that  the  passive  policy  would  lose  Democratic  votes, 
which  were  reluctant  at  the  best  and  could  only  be  held  by  party 
claims.  There  was  more  danger  from  the  latter  source  than  from 
the  former,  and  the  general  sentiment  recognized  the  necessity  of 
stamping  the  ticket  with  the  highest  Democratic  authority.  There 
was  but  one  ballot.  Mr.  Greeley  received  686  votes ;  white  15  from 
Delaware  and  New  Jersey  were  cast  for  James  A.  Bayard,  21  from 
Pennsylvania  for  Jeremiah  S.  Black,  2  for  William  S.  Groesbeck. 
For  Vice-President  Gratz  Brown  received  713,  John  W.  Stevenson 
of  Kentucky  6,  with  13  blank  votes. 

Mr.  Greeley's  letter  accepting  the  Democratic  nomination  ap- 
peared a  few  days  later.  He  frankly  stated  that  the  Democrats  had 
expected  and  would  have  preferred  a  different  nomination  at  Cincin- 
nati, and  that  they  accepted  him  only  because  the  matter  was  beyond 
their  control.  He  expressed  his  personal  satisfaction  at  the  endorse- 
ment of  the  Cincinnati  platform,  and  affected  to  regard  this  act  as 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  MR.  GREELEY.  531 

the  obliteration  of  all  differences.  The  only  other  point  of  the  letter 
was  an  argument  for  universal  amnesty.  This  was  the  one  doctrine 
upon  which  the  parties  to  the  alliance  could  most  readily  coalesce, 
and  Mr.  Greeley  gave  it  singular  prominence,  as  if  confident  that  it 
was  the  surest  way  of  winning  Democratic  support.  He  emphasized 
his  position  by  referring  to  the  case  of  Mr.  Vance,  who  had  just  been 
denied  his  seat  as  Senator  from  North  Carolina.  Mr.  Greeley  made 
this  case  the  chief  theme  of  his  letter,  and  insisted  that  the  policy 
which  excluded  the  chosen  representative  from  a  State,  whoever  he 
might  be,  was  incompatible  with  peace  and  good  will  throughout  the 
Union.1 


With  Grant  and  Greeley  fairly  in  the  field,  the  country  entered 
upon  a  remarkable  contest.  At  the  beginning  of  the  picturesque  and 
emotional  "log  cabin  canvass  of  1840,"  Mr.  Van  Buren,  with  his 
keen  insight  into  popular  movements,  had  said,  in  somewhat  mixed 
metaphor,  that  it  would  be  "  either  a  farce  or  a  tornado."  The  pres- 
ent canvass  gave  promise  on  different  grounds  of  similar  alterna- 
tives. General  Grant  had  been  tried,  and  with  him  the  country 
knew  what  to  expect.  Mr.  Greeley  had  not  been  tried,  and  though 
the  best  known  man  in  his  own  field  of  journalism,  he  was  the  least 
known  and  most  doubted  in  the  field  of  Governmental  administra- 
tion. No  other  candidate  could  have  presented  such  an  antithesis  of 
strength  and  of  weakness.  He  was  the  ablest  polemic  this  country 
has  ever  produced.  His  command  of  strong,  idiomatic,  controversial 
English  was  unrivaled.  His  faculty  of  lucid  statement  and  compact 
reasoning  has  never  been  surpassed.  Without  the  graces  of  fancy 
or  the  arts  of  rhetoric,  he  was  incomparable  in  direct,  pungent,  force- 
ful discussion.  A  keen  observer  and  an  omniverous  reader,  he  had 
acquired  an  immense  fund  of  varied  knowledge,  and  he  marshaled 
facts  with  singular  skill  and  aptness. 

In  an  era  remarkable  for  strong  editors  in  the  New- York  Press, 
—  embracing  Raymond  of  the  Times,  the  elder  Bennett  of  the 
Herald,  Watson  Webb  of  the  Courier-Enquirer,  William  Cullen 

1  Zebulon  B.  Vance  had  served  in  Congress  prior  to  the  war.  He  had  participated  in 
the  Rebellion  and  had  thus  become  subject  to  the  disabilities  imposed  by  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment.  His  disabilities  were  removed  at  a  later  date,  but  at  this  time  their  remis- 
sion had  not  been  asked  and  they  were  still  resting  upon  him.  With  the  full  knowledge 
that  he  was  thus  disqualified  he  was  elected  to  the  Senate,  and  the  Senate  declined  to 
recognize  an  election  defiantly  made  in  the  face  of  the  Constitutional  objection. 


532  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Bryant  of  the  Evening  Post,  with  Thurlow  Weed  and  Edwin  Cross- 
well  in  the  rival  journals  at  Albany,  —  Mr.  Greeley  easily  surpassed 
them  all.  His  mind  was  original,  creative,  incessantly  active.  His 
industry  was  as  unwearying  as  his  fertility  was  inexhaustible.  Great 
as  was  his  intellectual  power,  his  chief  strength  came  from  the  depth 
and  earnestness  of  his  moral  convictions.  In  the  long  and  arduous 
battle  against  the  aggressions  of  Slavery,  he  had  been  sleepless  and 
untiring  in  rousing  and  quickening  the  public  conscience.  He  was 
keenly  alive  to  the"  distinctions  of  right  and  wrong,  and  his  philan- 
thropy responded  to  every  call  of  humanity.  His  sympathies  were 
equally  touched  by  the  sufferings  of  the  famine-stricken  Irish  and  by 
the  wrongs  of  the  plundered  Indians.  Next  to  Henry  Clay,  whose 
ardent  disciple  he  was,  he  had  done  more  than  any  other  man  to  edu- 
cate his  countrymen  in  the  American  system  of  protection  to  home 
industry.  He  had  on  all  occasions  zealously  defended  the  rights  of 
labor  ;  he  had  waged  unsparing  war  on  the  evils  of  intemperance  ;  he 
had  made  himself  an  oracle  with  the  American  farmers ;  and  his  in- 
fluence was  even  more  potent  in  the  remote  prairie  homes  than  within 
the  shadow  of  Printing-House  Square.  With  his  dogmatic  earnest- 
ness, his  extraordinary  mental  qualities,  his  moral  power,  and  his 
quick  sympathy  with  the  instincts  and  impulses  of  the  masses,  he  Avas 
in  a  peculiar  sense  the  Tribune  of  the  people.  In  any  reckoning  of 
the  personal  forces  of  the  century,  Horace  Greeley  must  be  counted 
among  the  foremost  —  intellectually  and  morally. 

When  he  left  the  fields  of  labor  in  which  he  had  become  illus- 
trious, to  pass  the  ordeal  of  a  Presidential  candidate,  the  opposite 
and  weaker  sides  of  his  character  and  career  were  brought  into 
view.  He  was  headstrong,  impulsive,  and  opinionated.  If  he  had 
the  strength  of  a  giant  in  battle,  he  lacked  the  wisdom  of  the  sage 
in  council.  If  he  was  irresistible  in  his  own  appropriate  sphere  of 
moral  and  economic  discussion,  he  was  uncertain  and  unstable  when 
he  ventured  beyond  its  limits.  He  was  a  powerful  agitator  and  a 
matchless  leader  of  debate,  rather  than  a  master  of  government. 
Those  who  most  admired  his  honesty,  courage,  and  power  in  the 
realm  of  his  true  greatness,  most  distrusted  his  fitness  to  hold  the 
reins  of  administration.  He  had  in  critical  periods  evinced  a  want 
both  of  firmness  and  of  sagacity.  When  the  Southern  States  were 
on  the  eve  of  secesssion  and  the  temper  of  the  country  was  on  trial, 
he  had,  though  with  honest  intentions,  shown  signs  of  irresolution 
and  vacillation.  When  he  was  betrayed  into  the  ill-advised  and 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  MR.  GREELEY.  533 

abortive  peace  negotiations  with  Southern  commissioners  at  Niagara, 
he  had  displayed  the  lack  of  tact  and  penetration  which  made  the 
people  doubt  the  solidity  and  coolness  of  his  judgment.  His  method 
of  dealing  with  the  most  intricate  problems  of  finance  seemed  experir 
mental  and  rash.  The  sensitive  interests  of  business  shrank  from  his 
visionary  theories  and  his  dangerous  empiricism.  His  earlier  affilia- 
tion with  novel  and  doubtful  social  schemes  had  laid  him  open  to  the 
reproach  of  being  called  a  man  of  isms. 

Mr.  Greeley  had  moreover  weakened  himself  by  showing  a  singu- 
lar thirst  for  public  office.  It  is  strange  that  one  who  held  a  command- 
ing station,  and  who  wielded  an  unequaled  influence,  should  have 
been  ambitious  for  the  smaller  honors  of  public  life.  But  Mr.  Gree- 
ley had  craved  even  minor  offices,  from  which  he  could  have  derived 
no  distinction,  and,  in  his  own  phrase,  had  dissolved  the  firm  of 
Seward,  Weed,  and  Greeley  because,  as  he  conceived,  his  claims  to 
official  promotion  were  not  fairly  recognized.  This  known  aspira- 
tion added  to  the  reasons  which  discredited  his  unnatural  alliance 
with  the  Democracy.  His  personal  characteristics,  always  marked, 
were  exaggerated  and  distorted  in  the  portraitures  drawn  by  his  ad- 
versaries. All  adverse  considerations  were  brought  to  bear  with  irre- 
sistible effect  as  the  canvass  proceeded,  and  his  splendid  services 
and  undeniable  greatness  could  not  weigh  in  the  scale  against  the 
political  elements  and  personal  disqualifications  with  which  his  Pres- 
idential candidacy  was  identified. 

The  political  agitation  became  general  in  the  country  as  early  as 
July.  Senator  Conkling  inaugurated  the  Grant  campaign  in  New 
York  with  an  elaborate  and  comprehensive  review  of  the  personal  and 
public  issues  on  trial.  Senator  Sherman  and  other  leading  speakers 
took  the  field  with  equal  promptness.  On  the  opposite  side,  Senator 
Bumner,  who  had  sought  in  May  to  challenge  and  prevent  the  renom- 
ination  of  General  Grant  by  concentrating  in  one  massive  broadside 
all  that  could  be  suggested  against  him,  now  appeared  in  a  public 
letter  advising  the  colored  people  to  vote  for  Greeley.  Mr.  Elaine 
replied  in  a  letter  pointing  out  that  Mr.  Greeley,  in  denying  the 
power  of  the  General  Government  to  interpose,  had  committed  him- 
self to  a  policy  which  left  the  colored  people  without  protection.1 

The  September  elections  had  ordinarily  given  the  earliest  indica- 

1  Senator  Sunnier  retired  from  the  canvass  and  sailed  for  Europe  in  September. 
Hostile  as  he  was  to  President  Grant,  he  saw  in  the  end  that  his  defeat  would  subject  th« 
nation  to  Democratic  rule  and  to  a  ruinous  re-action,  whieh  Mr.  Greeley  as  President 
could  not  prevent. 


534  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

tion  in  Presidential  campaigns ;  but  circumstances  conspired  this  year 
to  make  the  North-Carolina  election,  which  was  held  on  the  1st  of 
August,  the  preliminary  test  of  popular  feeling.  The  earliest  returns 
from  North  Carolina,  coming  from  the  eastern  part  of  the  State,  were 
favorable  to  the  partisans  of  Mr.  Greeley.  They  claimed  a  decided 
victory,  and  were  highly  elated.  The  returns  from  the  Western  and 
mountain  counties,  which  were  not  all  received  for  several  days, 
reversed  the  first  reports,  and  established  a  Republican  success. 
This  change  produced  a  re-action,  and  set  the  tide  in  the  opposite 
direction.  From  this  hour  the  popular  current  was  clearly  with  the 
Republicans.  The  September  elections  in  Vermont  and  Maine  re- 
sulted in  more  than  the  average  Republican  majorities,  and  demon- 
strated that  Mr.  Greeley's  candidacy  had  not  broken  the  lines  of  the 
party.  Early  in  that  month  a  body  of  Democrats,  who  declined  to 
accept  Mr.  Greeley,  and  who  called  themselves  "  Straightouts,"  held 
a  convention  at  Louisville,  and  nominated  Charles  O'Connor  for  Pres- 
ident and  John  Quincy  Adams  for  Vice-President.  The  ticket  re- 
ceived a  small  number  of  votes  in  many  States,  but  did  not  become 
an  important  factor  in  the  National  struggle. 

In  anticipation  of  the  October  elections  Mr.  Greeley  made  an 
extended  tour  through  Pennsylvania,  Ohio  and  Indiana,  addressing 
great  masses  of  people  every  day  and  many  times  a  day  during  a 
period  of  two  weeks.  His  speeches,  while  chiefly  devoted  to  his  view 
of  the  duty  and  policy  of  pacification,  discussed  many  questions  and 
many  phases  of  the  chief  question.  They  were  varied,  forcible,  and 
well  considered.  They  presented  his  case  with  an  ability  which 
could  not  be  exceeded,  and  they  added  to  the  general  estimate  of  his 
intellectual  faculties  and  resources.  He  called  out  a  larger  propor- 
tion of  those  who  intended  to  vote  against  him  than  any  candidate 
had  ever  before  succeeded  in  doing;  His  name  had  been  honored  for 
so  many  years  in  every  Republican  household,  that  the  desire  to  see 
and  hear  him  was  universal,  and  secured  to  him  the  majesty  of  num- 
bers at  every  meeting.  So  great  indeed  was  the  general  demonstra- 
tion of  interest,  that  a  degree  of  uneasiness  was  created  at  Republican 
headquarters  as  to  the  ultimate  effect  of  his  tour. 

The  State  contests  had  been  strongly  organized  on  both  sides  at 
the  decisive  points.  In  New  York  the  Democrats  nominated  Francis 
Kernan  for  Governor,  —  a  man  of  spotless  character  and  great  popu- 
larity. The  Republicans  selected  General  John  A.  Dix  as  the  rival 
candidate,  on  the  earnest  suggestion  of  Thurlow  Weed,  whose  saga- 


RE-ELECTION  OF  GENERAL  GRANT.  535 

city  in  regard  to  the  strength  of  political  leaders  was  rarely  at  fault. 
General  Dix  was  in  his  seventy-fifth  year,  but  was  fresh  and  vigorous 
both  in  body  and  mind.  In  Indiana  the  leading  Democrat,  Thomas 
A.  Hendricks,  accepted  the  gubernatorial  nomination  and  the  leader- 
ship of  his  party,  against  General  Thomas  M.  Browne,  a  popular  Re- 
publican and  a  strong  man  on  the  stump.  Pennsylvania  was  the 
scene  of  a  peculiarly  bitter  and  angry  conflict.  General  Hartranft, 
the  Republican  candidate  for  Governor,  had  been  Auditor-General 
of  the  State,  and  his  administration  of  the  office  was  bitterly  assailed. 
The  old  factional  differences  in  the  State  now  entered  into  the 
antagonism,  and  he  was  strenuously  fought  by  an  element  of  his 
own  party  under  the  inspiration  of  Colonel  Forney,  who,  while  pro- 
fessedly supporting  Grant,  threw  all  the  force  of  the  Philadelphia 
Press  into  the  warfare  against  Hartranft.  This  violent  opposition 
encouraged  the  partisans  of  Mr.  Greeley  with  the  hope  that  they 
might  secure  the  prestige  of  victory  over  the  Republicans  in  Penn- 
sylvania, whose  October  verdicts  had  always  proved  an  unerring 
index  to  Presidential  elections.  But  they  were  doomed  to  disap- 
pointment. The  people  saw  that  the  charges  against  General  Har- 
tranft were  not  only  unfounded  but  malicious,  and  he  was  chosen 
Governor  by  more  than  35,000  majority.  Ohio  gave  a  Republican 
majority  on  the  same  day  of  more  than  14,000 ;  and  though  Mr. 
Hendricks  carried  Indiana  by  1,148,  this  narrow  margin  for  the 
strongest  Democrat  in  the  State  was  accepted  as  confirming  the  sure 
indications  in  the  other  States. 

The  defeat  of  Mr.  Greeley  and  the  re-election  of  General  Grant 
were  now,  in  the  popular  belief,  assured.  The  result  was  the  most 
decisive,  in  the  popular  vote,  of  any  Presidential  election  since  the 
unopposed  choice  of  Monroe  in  1820 ;  and  on  the  electoral  vote 
the  only  contests  so  one-sided  were  in  the  election  of  Pierce  in  1852, 
and  the  second  election  of  Lincoln  in  1864,  when  the  States  in 
rebellion  did  not  participate.  The  majorities  were  unprecedented. 
General  Grant  carried  Pennsylvania  by  137,548,  New  York  by 
53,455,  Illinois  by  57,006,  Iowa  by  60,370,  Massachusetts  by  74,212, 
Michigan  by  60,100,  Ohio  by  37,501,  and  Indiana  by  22,515.  Several 
of  the  Southern  States  presented  figures  of  similar  proportion.  In 
South  Carolina  the  Republican  majority  was  49,587,  in  Mississippi 
34,887,  and  in  North  Carolina  24,675.  Mr.  Greeley  carried  no 
Northern  State,  and  only  six  Southern  States,  —  Georgia,  Kentucky, 
Maryland,  Missouri,  Tennessee,  and  Texas.  But  these  great  majori- 


536  TWENTY  YEARS  OF   CONGRESS. 

ties  were  not  normal,  and  did  not  indicate  the  real  strength  of  parties. 
The  truth  is,  that  after  the  October  elections  Mr.  Greeley's  canvass 
was  utterly  hopeless;  and  thousands  of  Democrats  sought  to  hu- 
miliate their  leaders  for  the  folly  of  the  nomination  by  absenting 
themselves  from  the  polls.  The  Democratic  experiment  of  taking  a 
Republican  candidate  had  left  the  Republican  party  unbroken  ;  while 
the  Democratic  party,  if  not  broken,  was  at  least  discontented  and 
disheartened,  —  given  over  within  its  own  ranks  to  recrimination 
and  revenge. 

The  political  disaster  to  Mr.  Greeley  was  followed  by  a  start- 
ling and  melancholy  conclusion.  He  was  called  during  the  last 
days  of  the  canvass  to  the  bedside  of  his  dying  wife,  whom  he 
buried  before  the  day  of  election.  Despite  this  sorrow  and  despite 
the  defeat,  which,  in  separating  him  from  his  old  associates,  was 
more  than  an  ordinary  political  reverse,  he  promptly  returned  with 
unshaken  resolve  and  intrepid  spirit  to  the  editorship  of  the  Tribune,  — 
the  true  sphere  of  his  influence,  the  field  of  his  real  conquests.  But 
the  strain  through  which  he  had  passed,  following  years  of  incessant 
care  and  labor,  had  broken  his  vigorous  constitution.  His  physical 
strength  was  completely  undermined,  his  superb  intellectual  powers 
gave  way.  Before  the  expiration  of  the  month  which  witnessed  his 
crushing  defeat  he  had  gone  to  his  rest.  The  controversies  which 
had  so  recently  divided  the  country  were  hushed  in  the  presence  of 
death ;  and  all  the  people,  remembering  only  his  noble  impulses,  his 
great  work  for  humanity,  his  broad  impress  upon  the  age,  united  in 
honoring  and  mourning  one  of  the  most  remarkable  men  in  American 
history. 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

PRESIDENT  GRANT'S  SECOND  INAUGURATION.  —  COMPLAINS  OP  PARTISAN  ABUSE.  —  OR- 
GANIZATION OF  FORTY-THIRD  CONGRESS.  —  PROMINENT  MEMBERS  OF  SENATE  AND 
HOUSE.  —  DEATH  OF  CHARLES  SUMNER.  —  IMPRESSIVE  FUNERAL  CEREMONIES.  — 
SINGULAR  REMINISCENCE  BY  MR.  DAWES.  —  SPEECH  BY  MR.  LAMAR.  —  CAREER  OF 
ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS.  —  GOVERNMENT  OF  DISTRICT  OF  COLUMBIA.  —  RADICAL 
CHANGE.  —  GREAT  IMPROVEMENT.  —  ALEXANDER  R.  SHEPHERD.  —  REPUBLICAN  RE- 
VERSE, 1874.  —  DEMOCRATIC  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES.  —  MICHAEL  C.  KERR, 
SPEAKER.  —  MEMBERS  OF  SENATE  AND  HOUSE.  —  RADICAL  CHANGES.  —  ANDREW 
JOHNSON  IN  THE  SENATE.  —  His  SPEECH.  —  DIES  AT  HIS  HOME  IN  TENNESSEE.  — 
CONDITION  OF  THE  SOUTH.  —  AMNESTY.  —  AMENDMENT  TO  EXCEPT  JEFFERSON  DAVIS. 
—  BILL  DEFEATED. 


friends  of  General  Grant  intended  that  his  second  inaugu- 
1  ration  (March  4,  1873)  should  be  even  more  impressive  than 
the  first  ;  but  the  skies  were  unpropitious,  and  the  day  will  long  be 
remembered,  by  those  who  witnessed  the  festivities,  for  the  severity 
of  the  cold,  —  altogether  exceptional  in  the  climate  of  Washington. 
It  destroyed  the  pleasure  of  an  occasion  which  would  otherwise  have 
been  given  to  unrestrained  rejoicing  over  an  event  that  was  looked 
upon  by  the  great  majority  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  as 
peculiarly  auspicious. 

For  a  man  who  had  always  been  singularly  reticent  concerning 
himself,  both  in  public  and  private,  the  President  gave  free  expres- 
sion to  what  he  regarded  as  the  mistreatment  and  abuse  he  had  re- 
ceived from  political  opponents.  He  looked  forward,  he  said,  "  with 
the  greatest  anxiety  for  release  from  responsibilities  which  at  times 
are  almost  overwhelming,"  and  from  which  he  had  "  scarcely  had  a 
respite  since  the  eventful  firing  on  Fort  Sumter,  in  April,  1861,  to  the 
present  day."  "My  services,"  said  he,  "were  then  tendered  and 
accepted  under  the  first  call  for  troops  growing  out  of  the  event. 
I  did  not  ask  for  place  or  position,  and  was  entirely  without  influ- 
ence or  the  acquaintance  of  persons  of  influence,  but  was  resolved 
to  perform  my  part  in  a  struggle  threatening  the  very  existence  of 
the  Nation.  I  performed  a  conscientious  duty  without  asking  pro- 

537 


538  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

motion  or  command,  and  without  a  revengeful  feeling  towards  any 
section  or  individual.  Notwithstanding  this,  throughout  the  war 
and  from  my  candidacy  for  my  present  office  in  1868  to  the  close 
of  the  last  Presidential  campaign,  I  have  been  the  subject  of  abuse 
and  slander  scarcely  ever  equaled  in  political  history,  which  to-day 
I  feel  that  I  can  afford  to  disregard  in  view  of  your  verdict  which  I 
gratefully  accept  as  my  vindication." 

Surprise  was  generally  expressed  at  this  manifestation  of  personal 
feeling  on  the  part  of  the  President.  He  had  undoubtedly  been 
called  upon  to  confront  many  unpleasant  things,  as  every  incum- 
bent of  his  office  must ;  but  General  Grant  was  surely  in  error  in 
considering  himself  defamed  beyond  the  experience  of  his  prede- 
cessors. The  obloquy  encountered  by  Mr.  Jefferson  in  1800,  by  both 
Adams  and  Jackson  in  1828,  and  by  Mr.  Clay,  as  a  candidate,  for 
twenty  years,  far  exceeded  in  recklessness  that  from  which  the  Presi- 
dent had  suffered.  A  military  education  and  an  army  life  had  not 
prepared  General  Grant  for  the  abandoned  form  of  vituperation  to 
which  he  was  necessarily  subjected  when  he  became  a  candidate  for 
the  Presidency.  For  this  reason,  perhaps,  he  endured  it  less  patiently 
than  his  predecessors,  who  had  been  subjected  to  it  in  worse  form 
and  more  intolerant  spirit.  But  General  Grant  had  the  good  for- 
tune, in  great  degree  denied  to  his  predecessors,  to  see  his  political 
enemies  withdraw  their  unfounded  aspersions  during  his  lifetime,  to 
see  his  calumniators  become  his  personal  and  official  eulogists,  prac- 
tically retracting  the  slanders  and  imputations  to  which  they  had 
given  loose  tongue  when  the  object  at  stake  was  his  defeat  for  the 
Presidency. 

The  President  had  made  changes  in  his  Cabinet  and  had  lost  the 
two  Massachusetts  members,  —  E.  Rockwood  Hoar,  Attorne}^Gen- 
eral,  and  Mr.  Boutwell,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  The  former  re- 
signed in  1870;  the  latter  in  1873,  to  take  the  seat  in  the  Senate 
made  vacant  by  the  election  of  Henry  Wilson  to  the  Vice-Presi- 
dency. These  gentlemen  were  among  the  most  valued  of  President 
Grant's  advisers,  and  the  retirement  of  each  was  deeply  regretted. 
The  changes  in  the  Cabinet  continued  through  President  Grant's 
second  term.1 

1  In  the  history  of  the  Federal  Government  only  one  administration  (that  of 
Franklin  Pierce)  has  completed  its  full  term  without  a  single  change  in  the  Cabinet 
announced  at  its  beginning.  The  following  are  the  members  of  General  Grant's  Cabi- 
net, the  changes  in  which  were  in  the  aggregate  more  numerous  than  in  the  Cabinet  of 
any  of  his  predecessors:  — 


ORGANIZATION  OF  FORTY-THIRD  CONGRESS.  539 

The  Forty-third  Congress  organized  on  the  first  Monday  in  De- 
cember, 1873.  Among  the  new  senators  were  some  men  already  well 
known,  and  others  who  subsequently  became  conspicuous  in  the 
public  service :  — 

—  William  B.  Allison  of  Iowa  had  served  eight  years  in  the  House, 
closing  with  March  4,  1871,  and  was  now  promoted  to  the  Senate 
by  the  people  of  his  State,  who  appreciated  his  sterling  qualities. 
For  industry,  good  judgment,  strong  common  sense,  and  fidelity  to 
every  trust,  both  personal  and  public,  Mr.  Allison  has  established 
an  enviable  reputation.     He  devoted  himself  to  financial  questions 
and  soon  acquired  in  the  Senate  the  position  of  influence  which  he 
had  long  held  in  the  House.     In   both   branches   of   Congress   his 
service  has  been  attended  with  an  exceptional  degree  of  popularity 
among  his  associates  of  both  parties. 

—  Aaron   A.  Sargent,  a   native   of  Massachusetts,  had   served   six 
years  in  the  House  at  two  different  periods  (beginning  in  1861)  as 
a  representative  from  California.     He  was  originally  a  printer  and 
editor,  but  turned  his  attention  to  the  law  and  became  a  member  of 
the  bar  in  1854.     He  enjoyed  the  distinction  in  California  of  being  a 
pioneer  of  1849,  and  was  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  develop- 
ment of  the  State  at  every  step  in  her  wonderful  progress.     No  man 
ever  kept  more  eager  watch  over  the  interests  of  his  constituency  or 
was  more  constant  and  indefatigable  in  his  legislative  duties. 

—  John   J.  Ingalls,  a   native   of  Massachusetts  and  a   graduate  of 
Williams  College,  sought  a  home  in  Kansas  directly  after  the  com- 
pletion of  his  law  studies  in  1858.     He  at  once  took  part  in  public 
affairs,  holding  various  offices  under  the  Territorial  and  State  Gov- 

Secretaries  of  State.  —  Elihu  B.  Washburne,  Hamilton  Fish. 

Secretaries  of  the  Treasury.  —  George  S.  Boutwell,  William  A.  Richardson,  Benja- 
min H.  Bristow,  Lot  M.  Morrill. 

Secretaries  of  War.  —  John  A.  Rawlins,  William  W.  Belknap,  Alphonso  Taft,  /ames 
Donald  Cameron. 

Secretaries  of  the  Navy.  —  Adolph  E.  Borie,  George  M.  Robeson. 

Postmasters-General.  — John  A.  J.  Creswell,  James  W.  Marshall,  Marshall  Jewell, 
James  N.  Tyner. 

Attorneys-General.  — E.  Rockwood  Hoar,  Amos  T.  Akerman,  George  H.  Williams, 
Edwards  Pierrepont,  Alphonso  Taft. 

Secretaries  of  the  Interior.  —  Jacob  D.  Cox,  Columbus  Delano,  Zachariah  Chandler. 

By  this  it  will  be  seen  that  twenty-four  Cabinet  officers  served  under  General  Grant. 
But  this  number  does  not  include  Alexander  T.  Stewart,  who  though  confirmed  did  not 
enter  upon  his  duties  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury;  or  General  Sherman,  who  was 
Secretary  of  War  ad  interim ;  or  Eugene  Hale,  who  was  appointed  Postmaster-General, 
but  never  entered  upon  service.  Mr.  Taft  is  counted  only  once,  though  he  served  in 
two  Departments. 


540  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

ernments  in  succession ;  was  for  some  years  editor  of  a  prominent 
paper ;  and  was  engaged  steadily  in  the  practice  of  the  law  until  his 
election  to  the  Senate.  His  training  and  culture  are  far  beyond  that 
ordinarily  implied  by  the  possession  of  a  college  diploma.  His  mind 
has  been  enriched  by  the  study  of  books  and  disciplined  by  contro- 
versy at  the  Bar  and  in  the  Senate.  As  a  speaker  he  is  fluent  and 
eloquent,  but  perhaps  too  much  given  to  severity  of  expression.  He 
possesses  in  marked  degree  the  dangerous  power  of  sarcasm,  and  in 
any  discussion  which  borders  upon  personal  issues  Mr.  Ingalls  is  an 
antagonist  to  be  avoided.  But  outside  the  arena  of  personal  conflict 
he  is  a  genial  man.  He  devotes  himself  closely  to  his  senatorial 
duties,  and  exhibits  the  steady  growth  which  uniformly  attends  the 
superior,  mind. 

—  John  P.  Jones  entered  the  Senate  from  Nevada  in  his  forty-third 
year.  Though  born  in  Wales,  he  was  reared  from  infancy  in  the 
northern  part  of  Ohio.  He  went  to  California  before  he  attained  his 
majority,  and  subsequently  became  a  citizen  of  Nevada.  His  Welsh 
blood,  his  life  in  the  Western  Reserve,  and  his  long  experience  as  a 
miner  on  the  Pacific  slope,  combined  to  make  a  rare  and  somewhat 
remarkable  character.  His  educational  facilities  embraced  only  the 
public  schools  of  Cleveland,  but  he  has  by  his  own  efforts  acquired  a 
great  mass  of  curious  and  valuable  information.  A  close  observer 
of  men,  gifted  with  humor  and  appreciating  humor  in  others,  he  is  a 
genial  companion  arid  always  welcome  guest.  He  is  a  man  of 
originality  and  works  out  his  own  conclusions.  His  views  of  finan- 
cial and  economical  questions  are  often  in  conflict  with  current 
maxims  and  established  precedents,  but  no  one  can  listen  to  him 
without  being  impressed  by  his  intellectual  power. 
4 — Richard  J.  Oglesby,  who  took  the  place  of  Lyman  Trumbull  as 
senator  from  Illinois,  is  a  native  of  Kentucky,  but  went  to  Illinois 
when  twelve  years  of  age.  He  was  admitted  to  the  bar  as  soon  as 
he  attained  his  majority,  in  1845.  He  was  a  soldier  in  the  Mexican 
war,  arid  spent  two  years  as  a  miner  in  California.  On  returning  to 
Illinois  he  took  active  part  in  politics,  and  was  influential  in  promot- 
ing the  nomination  of  Mr.  Lincoln  for  the  Presidency  in  1860.  He 
enlisted  in  the  Union  Army  as  soon  as  the  civil  war  began,  went  to 
the  field  as  a  Colonel  and  retired  from  it  as  a  Major-General.  He 
was  Governor  of  his  State  from  1865  to  1869,  and  was  re-elected 
to  the  same  office  in  1872  but  was  immediately  transferred  to  the 
Senate.  Few  men  have  enjoyed  a  greater  degree  of  personal  popu- 


NEW  MEMBERS  OF  THE  SENATE.  541 

larity  among  neighbors,  acquaintances,  and  the  people  of  an  entire 
State,  than  General  Oglesby.  His  frankness,  his  kindly  disposition, 
his  sympathy  with  the  desires  and  the  needs  of  the  great  mass  of  the 
people,  his  pride  in  Illinois  and  his  devotion  to  her  interests,  all 
combined  to  give  him  not  merely  the  political  support  but  the  strong 
personal  attachment  of  his  fellow-citizens. 

—  John  H.  Mitchell,  a  native  of  Pennsylvania  who  went  to  the  Paci- 
fic coast  before  he  had  fairly  passed  from  the  period  of  boyhood,  now 
returned  as  senator  from  Oregon  at  thirty-seven  years  of  age.  He 
had  been  diligent  and  successful  as  a  lawyer,  and  had  acquainted 
himself  in  a  very  thorough  manner  with  the  wants  and  the  interests 
of  his  State,  to  which  he  devoted  himself  with  assiduity  and  success. 
He  was  an  accurate  man  and  always  discharged  his  senatorial  duties 
with  care  and  fidelity. 

The  new  senators  from  the  South  were  in  themselves  the  proof 
that  the  Republicans  still  had  control  in  several  of  the  reconstructed 
States,  and  that  in  others  the  Democrats  had  regained  complete  ascend- 
ency.—  Stephen  W.  Dorsey,  who  had  been  in  the  military  service 
from  Ohio  and  settled  in  Arkansas  after  the  war,  now  appeared  as 
senator  from  that  State,  at  thirty-two  years  of  age.  —  John  J.  Pat- 
terson, a  native  of  Pennsylvania,  came  from  South  Carolina,  and 
Simon  B.  Conover,  a  native  of  New  Jersey,  from  Florida.  —  Georgia 
had  been  recovered  by  the  Democrats,  and  now  sent  John  B.  Gordon 
as  senator  to  succeed  Joshua  Hill.  General  Gordon  had  been  con- 
spicuous in  the  Confederate  service,  commanding  a  corps  in  the  army 
of  General  Lee.  He  enjoyed  at  the  time  of  his  election  great  per- 
sonal popularity  in  his  State.  —  North  Carolina,  though  carried  on 
the  popular  vote  for  General  Grant,  had  elected  a  Democratic  Legis- 
lature ;  and  A.  S.  Merrimon,  prominent  at  the  bar  of  his  State  and 
of  long  service  on  the  bench,  now  appeared  with  credentials  as  sena- 
tor to  succeed  John  Pool. 

The  most  conspicuous  additions  to  the  House  of  Representatives 
of  the  Forty-third  Congress  were  E.  Rockwood  Hoar  of  Massachu- 
setts, Lyman  Tremaine  of  New  York,  L.  Q.  C.  Lamar  of  Mississippi, 
William  R.  Morrison  of  Illinois,  John  A.  Kasson  of  Iowa,  and  Hugh 
J.  Jewett  of  Ohio.  These  gentlemen  were  already  widely  known  to 
the  country.  Judge  Hoar  and  Mr.  Tremaine  served  but  one  term ; 
Mr.  Jewett  resigned  to  take  the  Presidency  of  the  Erie  Railroad ;  Mr. 
Morrison,  Mr.  Kasson,  and  Mr.  Lamar  acquired  additional  distinction 
by  subsequent  service.  Among  those  now  entering  who  grew  into 


542  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

prominence,  were  Julius  C.  Burrows,  George  Willard,  and  Jay  A. 
Hubbell  of  Michigan ;  Charles  G.  Williams  of  Wisconsin ;  Richard 
P.  Bland  (of  "Bland  dollar"  fame),  T.  T.  Crittenden,  and  Edwin  O. 
Stanard  of  Missouri :  Horace  F.  Page  of  California ;  Greenbury 
L.  Fort  of  Illinois ;  James  Wilson  and  James  W.  McDill  of  Iowa ; 
William  A.  Phillips  of  Kansas  ;  Lorenzo  Danford,  James  W.  Robin- 
son, Milton  I.  Southard,  and  Richard  C.  Parsons  from  Ohio  ;  Lemuel 
Todd,  A.  Herr  Smith,  and  Hiester  Clymer  of  Pennsylvania  ;  Eppa 
Hunton  and  John  T.  Harris  of  Virginia ;  John  M.  Glover  and  Aylett 
H.  Buckner  of  Missouri.  Henry  J.  Scudder,  a  very  intelligent  gen- 
tleman whose  service  should  have  been  longer,  came  from  the  Staten 
Island  district,  New  York.  Milton  Sayler  and  Henry  B.  Banning 
entered  from  the  Cincinnati  districts,  the  latter  with  the  distinction 
of  having  defeated  Stanley  Matthews.  Stephen  A.  Hurlbut  and 
Joseph  G.  Cannon  entered  from  Illinois.  Each  soon  acquired  a 
prominent  position  in  the  House,  —  General  Hurlbut  as  a  ready 
debater,  and  Mr.  Cannon  as  an  earnest  worker.  Mr.  Cannon,  indeed, 
became  an  authority  in  the  House  on  all  matters  pertaining  to  the 
Postal  Service  of  the  United  States. 

—  Thomas  C.  Platt   came   from   the   Binghamton    district  of  New 
York.      He  had  been  an  active  man  of  business  and   had   gained 
personal  popularity.      He  developed  an  aptitude   for  public   affairs 
and  soon  acquired   influence  in  his  State.     He  was  not  a  trained 
debater,  nor  had  he,  when  he  entered  Congress,  official  experience  of 
any  kind.     But  he  was  gifted  with  strong  common  sense,  and  had 
that  quick  judgment  of  men  which  contributes  so  essentially  to  suc- 
cess in  public  life. 

—  William  Walter  Phelps  came  from  the  Passaic  district    of  New 
Jersey.     He  is  a  member  of  the  well-known  Connecticut  family  of 
that  name,  —  a  family  distinguished  for  integrity  and  independence 
of  character,  and  for  success   in  great  financial  enterprises.      Mr. 
Phelps  received  a  thorough  intellectual  training  and  graduated  with 
distinction  at  Yale  College  in  1860.     He  was  soon  after  admitted 
to  the  bar  of  New  York,  and  took  part  in  the  management  of  various 
corporations.     He  has  an  admirable  talent  for  extempore  speech.     The 
inheritance  of  a  large  fortune  has  perhaps  in  some  degree  hindered 
Mr.  Phelps's  success  in  a  political  career  ;  but  it  has  not  robbed  him 
of  manly  ambition,  or  lowered  his  estimate  of  a  worthy  and  honor- 
able life. 

—  Stewart  L.  Woodford  entered  from  one  of  the  Brooklyn  districts. 


NEW  MEMBERS  OF  THE  HOUSE.  543 

Graduating  at  Columbia  College  in  1854,  he  was  soon  after  admitted 
to  the  bar,  but  left  his  practice  to  enlist  in  the  Union  service  when 
the  civil  war  began.  He  was  a  good  soldier,  and  reached  the  rank 
of  Brigadier-General.  He  was  elected  Lieutenant-Governor  of  New 
York  in  1866  at  thirty-one  years  of  age.  He  has  acquired  wide 
popularity  as  a  platform  speaker.  He  enjoys  the  unlimited  confi- 
dence and  respect  of  friends  and  neighbors,  —  the  best  attestation 
that  can  be  given  of  a  man's  real  character. 

—  Stephen  B.  Elkins  was  for  four  years  a  most  efficient  delegate  in 
Congress   from  New  Mexico.     He  was  a  distinguished  graduate  of 
Missouri  University,  and  though  reared  in  a  community  where  South- 
ern influences  prevailed  was  an  earnest  Union  man.      He  went  to 
New  Mexico  soon  after  attaining  his  majority,  served  in  the  Legisla- 
tive Assembly,  became  prominent  at  the  bar,  was  Attorney-General 
of  the  Territory,  and  afterwards  United-States   District   Attorney. 
He  entered  Congress  in  his  thirty-second  year. 

—  Two  other  delegates  who  were   in  Congress  at   the  same  time, 
Richard  C.  McCormick  of  Arizona,  and   Martin  Maginnis  of  Mon- 
tana,—  the  one  a  Republican  and  the  other  a  Democrat, — became 
distinguished  for  the  zeal  and  ability  with  which  they  guarded  the 
interests  of  their  constituents. 

The  long  and  honorable  service  of  Edward  McPherson  as  Clerk 
of  the  House,  terminated  with  the  close  of  the  Forty-third  Congress. 
He  had  held  the  position  for  twelve  consecutive  years  —  a  period 
which  followed  directly  after  four  years  of  service  as  representative 
in  Congress  from  the  Gettysburg  district.  When  first  elected  to 
Congress  he  was  but  twenty-eight  years  of  age.  The  Clerkship  of 
the  House  is  a  highly  responsible  office,  and  no  man  could  dis- 
charge its  complex  duties  with  greater  intelligence,  fidelity  and 
discretion  than  did  Mr.  McPherson  throughout  the  whole  period  of 
his  service.1  Beyond  his  official  duties  he  rendered  great  service  to 
the  public  by  the  compilation  of  political  handbooks  for  Presidential 
and  Congressional  elections.  The  facts  pertinent  to  political  dis- 
cussion were  impartially  presented  and  admirably  arranged.  Mr. 
McPherson's  larger  works,  the  histories  of  the  Rebellion  and  of  Re- 
construction, are  invaluable  to  the  political  student. 


1  Pennsylvanians  have  filled  the  Clerkship  of  the  House  for  forty  years  in  all.  The 
best  known,  besides  Mr.  McPherson,  are  Matthew  St.  Clair  Clarke,  Walter  S.  Franklin 
and  John  W.  Forney. 


544  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

On  Friday,  the  sixth  day  of  March,  1874,  Charles  Sumner  was  in 
the  Senate  chamber  for  the  last  time.  He  took  active  part  in  the 
proceedings  of  the  day,  debating  at  some  length  the  bill  proposing 
an  appropriation  for  the  Centennial  celebration  at  Philadelphia.  On 
Monday,  the  9th,  to  which  day  the  Senate  adjourned,  his  absence 
was  noticed,  but  not  commented  on  further  than  that  one  senator 
remembered  Mr.  Sumner's  complaining  of  a  sense  of  great  fatigue 
after  his  speech  of  Friday.  The  session  of  Monday  lasted  but  a 
few  minutes,  as  the  Senate  adjourned  from  respect  to  the  mem- 
ory of  Ex-President  Fillmore,  who  had  died  the  day  before  at  his 
home  in  Buffalo.  On  Tuesday  there  were  rumors  within  the  circle 
of  Mr.  Sumner's  intimate  friends  that  he  was  ill,  but  no  special  anxi- 
ety was  felt  until  near  nightfall,  when  it  was  known  that  he  was 
suffering  from  a  sudden  and  violent  attack  of  angina  pectoris,  and 
grave  apprehensions  were  felt  by  his  physicians.  By  a  coincidence 
which  did  not  escape  observation,  it  was  the  anniversary  of  the  day 
on  which  three  years  before  he  was  removed  from  the  chairmanship 
of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations.  He  died  in  the  afternoon 
of  the  next  day,  Wednesday,  March  11  (1874).  On  Thursday  the 
funeral  services  were  held  in  the  Senate  chamber,  and  were  marked 
with  a  manifestation  of  personal  sorrow  on  the  part  of  multitudes 
of  people,  more  profound  than  had  attended  the  last  rites  of  any 
statesman  of  the  generation,  —  Abraham  Lincoln  alone  excepted. 
Formal  eulogies  were  pronounced  upon  his  life  and  character  on 
the  27th  of  April,  his  colleague  Mr.  Bo'utwell  presenting  the  appro- 
priate resolutions  in  the  Senate,  and  his  intimate  friend  of  many 
years,  E.  Rockwood  Hoar,  in  the  House.  The  eulogies  in  both 
branches  were  numerous  and  touching.  They  were  not  confined  to 
party,  to  section,  or  to  race. 

Whoever  was  first  in  other  fields  of  statesmanship,  the  pre-emi- 
nence of  Mr.  Sumner  on  the  slavery  question  must  always  be  con- 
ceded. Profoundly  conversant  with  all  subjects  of  legislation,  he  yet 
devoted  himself  absorbingly  to  the  one  issue  which  appealed  to  his 
judgment  and  his  conscience.  He  held  the  Republican  party  to  a  high 
standard,  —  a  standard  which  but  for  his  courage  and  determination 
might  have  been  lowered  at  several  crises  in  the  history  of  the 
struggle  for  Liberty.  He  did  not  live  to  see  the  accomplishment  of 
all  the  measures  to  which  he  had  dedicated  his  powers.  He  died 
without  seeing  his  Civil  Rights  Bill  enacted  into  law.  For  that  only 
he  desired  to  live.  To  his  colleague  and  faithful  friend,  Henry 


DEATH  OF  CHARLES  SUMNER.  545 

Wilson,  who  followed  him  so  soon,  he  said  mournfully :  "  If  the 
publication  of  my  works  were  completed  and  my  Civil  Rights  Bill 
passed,  no  visitor  could  enter  the  door  that  would  be  more  welcome 
than  Death."  He  was  weary  of  life.  He  was  solitary,  without  kin- 
dred, without  domestic  ties.  He  had  been  subjected  at  intervals  for 
eighteen  years  to  great  suffering,  which  with  the  anxieties  of  public 
life  and  the  solitude  which  had  become  burdensome  wore  away  his 
energy.  However  much  his  wisdom  may  be  questioned  by  those  who 
were  not  his  political  friends,  whatever  criticism  may  be  made  of  the 
zeal  which  not  infrequently  was  assumed  to  be  ill-timed  and  mis- 
judged, Mr.  Sumner  must  ever  be  regarded  as  a  scholar,  an  orator, 
a  philanthropist,  a  philosopher,  a  statesman  whose  splendid  and  unsul- 
lied fame  will  always  form  part  of  the  true  glory  of  the  Nation. 

An  incident  related  by  Mr.  Dawes  in  his  eulogy  of  Mr.  Sumner 
strikingly  illustrates  the  shortsightedness  and  miscalculation  of  the 
Southern  statesmen  preceding  the  Rebellion.  Mr.  Sumner's  first 
term  in  the  Senate  began  just  as  the  last  term  of  Colonel  Benton  closed. 
Soon  after  his  arrival  in  Washington  the  Massachusetts  senator  met 
the  illustrious  Missourian.  They  became  well  acquainted  and  friendly. 
In  the  ensuing  year  the  two  eminent  men  had  a  conversation  on 
public  affairs.  The  Compromise  of  1850  had  been  approved  by  both 
the  great  parties  in  their  National  Conventions,  and  Franklin  Pierce 
had  just  been  chosen  President.  The  power  of  the  South  seemed 
fixed,  its  control  of  public  events  irresistible.  To  the  apprehension 
of  the  political  historian  the  Slave  power  had  not  been  so  strong 
since  the  day  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  its  statesmen  looked 
forward  to  policies  which  would  still  further  enhance  its  strength. 
Colonel  Benton  said  to  Mr.  Sumner:  "You  have  come  upon  the  stage 
too  late,  sir.  All  our  great  men  have  passed  away.  Mr.  Calhoun 
and  Mr.  Clay  and  Mr.  Webster  are  gone.  Not  only  have  the  great 
men  passed  away,  but  the  great  issues,  too,  raised  from  our  form  of 
government  and  of  deepest  interest  to  its  founders  and  their 
immediate  descendants,  have  been  settled,  sir.  The  last  of  these 
was  the  National  Bank,  and  that  has  been  overthrown  forever. 
Nothing  is  left  you,  sir,  but  puny  sectional  questions  and  petty 
strifes  about  slavery  and  fugitive-slave  laws,  involving  no  National 
issues." 

It  is  instructive  to  remember  that  in  little  more  than  eight  years 
after  this  conversation,  and  but  three  years  after  Colonel  Benton's 
death,  the  civil  war  began,  and  opened  to  Mr.  Sumner  the  opportu- 
VOL.  IL  35 


546  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

nity  of  leading  in   a  political  and  social  revolution  almost  without 
parallel  in  modern  times. 


A  singular  interest  was  added  to  the  formal  eulogies  of  Mr.  Sumner 
by  the  speech  of  Mr.  Lamar  of  Mississippi,  who  had  just  returned  to 
the  House  of  Representatives  which  he  left  thirteen  years  before 
to  join  his  State  in  secession.  It  was  a  mark  of  positive  genius  in  a 
Southern  representative  to  pronounce  a  fervid  and  discriminating 
eulogy  upon  Mr.  Sumner,  and  skilfully  to  interweave  with  it  a  defense 
of  that  which  Mr.  Sumner  like  John  Wesley  believed  to  be  the 
sum  of  all  villanies.  Only  a  man  of  Mr.  Lamar's  .peculiar  mental 
type  could  have  accomplished  the  task.  He  pleased  the  radical  anti- 
slavery  sentiment  of  New  England :  he  did  not  displease  the  radical 
pro-slavery  sentiment  of  the  South.  There  is  a  type  of  mind  in  the 
East  that  delights  in  refined  fallacies,  in  the  reconciling  of  apparent 
contradictions,  in  the  tracing  of  distinctions  and  resemblances  where 
less  subtle  intellects  fail  to  perceive  their  possibility.  There  is  a 
certain  Orientalism  in  the  mind  of  Mr.  Lamar,  strangely  admixed 
with  typical  Americanism.  He  is  full  of  reflection,  full  of  imagina- 
tion ;  seemingly  careless,  yet  closely  observant ;  apparently  dreamy, 
yet  altogether  practical. 

It  is  the  possession  of  these  contradictory  qualities  which  accounts 
for  Mr.  Lamar's  political  course.  His  reason,  his  faith,  his  hope,  all 
led  him  to  believe  in  the  necessity  of  preserving  the  Union  of  the 
States ;  but  he  persuaded  himself  that  fidelity  to  a  constituency 
which  had  honored  him,  personal  ties  with  friends  from  whom  he 
could  not  part,  the  maintenance  of  an  institution  which  he  was 
pledged  to  defend,  called  upon  him  to  stand  with  the  secession 
leaders  in  the  revolt  of  1861.  He  was  thus  ensnared  in  the  toils  of 
his  own  reasoning.  His  very  strength  became  his  weakness.  He 
could  not  escape  from  his  self-imposed  thraldom  and  he  ended  by  fol- 
lowing a  cause  whose  success  could  bring  no  peace,  instead  of  main- 
taining a  cause  whose  righteousness  was  the  assurance  of  victory. 

Alexander  H.  Stephens  took  his  seat  in  the  same  Congress  with 
Mr.  Lamar.  He  had  acquired  a  commanding  reputation  in  the 
South  by  his  sixteen  years'  service  in  the  House  from  1843  to  1859. 
He  had  been  trained  in  the  Whig  school,  and  had  early  espoused  the 
strong  Federal  principles  which  recognized  the  doctrine  of  secession 
as  a  heresy,  and  disunion  as  a  crime.  In  joining  the  Rebellion 


GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  DISTRICT  OF  COLUMBIA.  547 

he  renounced  a  creed  of  Nationality  in  which  the  Democratic 
promoters  of  the  Confederacy  had  never  believed.  He  incurred 
thereby  a  heavier  responsibility  than  those  who,  trained  in  the  strict 
construction  school,  found  sovereignty  in  the  State  and  recognized 
no  superior  allegiance  to  the  National  Government ;  who  in  fact 
denied  that  there  was  any  such  power  existing  as  a  National  Govern- 
ment. If  Mr.  Stephens  had  maintained  his  original  devotion  to  the 
National  idea,  a  noble  course  lay  before  him  ;  but  when  he  drifted 
from  his  moorings  of  loyalty  to  the  Union  he  surrendered  the  position 
that  could  have  given  him  fame.  He  was  rewarded  with  the  second 
office  in  the  Confederacy  —  which  may  be  taken  as  the  measure  of  his 
importance  to  the  Secession  cause,  according  to  the  estimate  of  the 
original  conspirators  against  the  Union. 

Mr.  Stephens  was  physically  a  shattered  man  when  he  resumed 
his  seat  in  Congress,  but  the  activity  of  his  mind  was  unabated.  With 
all  their  disposition  to  look  upon  him  as  an  illustrious  statesman,  it 
must  be  frankly  confessed  that  he  made  little '  impression  upon  the 
new  generation  of  public  men.  Instead  of  the  admiration  which  his 
speeches  were  once  said  to  have  elicited  in  the  House,  the  wonder 
now  grew  that  he  ever  could  have  been  considered  an  oracle  or  a 
leader.  He  had  been  dominated  in  the  crises  of  his  career  by  the 
superior  will  and  greater  ability  of  Robert  Toombs ;  and  he  now 
appeared  merely  as  a  relic  of  the  past  in  a  representative  assembly 
in  which  his  voice  was  said  to  have  been  once  potential. 


At  the  close  of  the  Forty-first  Congress  in  the  month  of  February, 
1871,  an  Act  was  passed  providing  a  government  for  the  District  of 
Columbia.  It  repealed  the  charters  of  the  cities  of  Washington  and 
Georgetown,  destroyed  the  old  Levy  court  which  existed  under  the 
statutes  of  Maryland  before  the  District  was  ceded,  and  placed  over 
the  entire  territory  a  form  of  government  totally  differing  from  any 
which  had  theretofore  existed.  It  consisted  of  a  Governor,  and  a 
Legislative  Assembly  composed  of  a  Council  and  a  House  of  Dele- 
gates. The  Governor  and  the  Council  were  to  be  appointed  by  the 
President  and  confirmed  by  the  Senate,  and  the  House  of  Delegates 
was  to  be  elected  by  the  people  ;  thus  making  the  government  conform 
in  essential  respects  to  that  which  had  been  provided  for  the  earlier 
Territories  of  the  United  States.  Powers  assimilating  mainly  with 


548  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

those  granted  to  new  Territories  were  conferred  upon  the  govern- 
ment of  the  District,  including  the  power  to  borrow  money  to  an 
amount  equivalent  to  "  five  per  cent  of  the  assessed  value  of  prop- 
erty in  said  District ; "  and  to  borrow  without  charter  limitation, 
"  provided  the  law  authorizing  the  same  shall,  at  a  general  election, 
have  been  submitted  to  the  people,  and  have  received  a  majority 
of  the  votes  cast  for  members  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  at  such 
election.'* 

It  was  a  radical  change,  and  the  powers  were  granted  because 
of  the  necessity,  which  was  generally  felt,  that  something  should  be 
done  for  the  improvement  of  the  National  Capital.  Alexander  R. 
Shepherd,  a  native  of  the  District,  engaged  in  business  as  a  plumber 
and  known  to  be  a  man  of  remarkable  energy  and  enterprise,  was 
appointed  Governor  of  the  District  by  President  Grant  and  was  con- 
firmed by  the  Senate.  He  was  a  personal  friend  in  whom  the  Presi- 
dent reposed  boundless  confidence.  In  the  course  of  little  more  than 
three  years,  which  was  the  duration  of  the  new  government,  an  as- 
tonishing change  was  effected  in  the  character  and  appearance  of  the 
city  of  Washington.  From  an  ill-paved,  ill-lighted,  unattractive 
city,  it  became  a  model  of  regularity,  cleanliness,  and  beauty.  No 
similar  transformation  has  ever  been  so  speedily  realized  in  an 
American  city,  the  model  being  found  only  in  certain  European 
capitals  where  public  money  had  been  lavishly  expended  for  adorn- 
ment. 

Of  course  so  great  an  improvement  involved  the  expenditure  of 
large  sums,  and  the  District  of  Columbia  found  itself  in  debt  to  the 
amount  of  several  millions.  An  agitation  was  aroused  against  what 
was  alleged  to  be  the  corrupt  extravagance  of  the  government :  the 
law  authorizing  it  was  repealed  and  the  District  placed  under  the 
direction  of  three  Commissioners,  who  have  since  administered  its 
affairs.  Whatever  fault  may  be  found,  whatever  charges  may  be 
made,  the  fact  remains  that  Governor  Shepherd  wrought  a  com 
plete  revolution  in  the  appearance  of  the  Capital.  Perhaps  a  pru- 
dent and  cautious  man  would  not  have  ventured  to  go  as  fast  and 
as  far  as  he  went,  but  there  was  no  proof  that  selfish  motives 
had  inspired  his  action.  He  had  not  enriched  himself,  and  when  the 
government  ended  he  was  compelled  to  seek  a  new  field  of  enterprise 
in  the  mineral  region  of  Northern  Mexico.  The  prejudice  evoked 
towards  Governor  Shepherd  has  in  large  part  died  away,  and  he  is 
justly  entitled  to  be  regarded  as  one  who  conferred  inestimable  bene- 


A  DEMOCRATIC  VICTORY.  549 

fits  upon  the  city  of  Washington.  The  subsequent  growth  of  popu- 
lation, the  great  number  of  new  and  handsome  residences,  the  rapid 
and  continuous  rise  in  the  value  of  real  estate,  the  vastly  increased 
number  of  annual  visitors,  have  given  a  new  life  to  the  National 
Capital  which  dates  distinctly  from  the  changes  and  improvements 
which  he  inaugurated. 


The  Republican  party  naturally  considered  itself  invested  with  a 
new  lease  of  power.  The  victory  in  the  Presidential  election  of  1872 
had  been  so  sweeping,  both  in  the  number  of  States  and  in  the  popu- 
lar majorities,  that  it  seemed  as  if  no  re-action  were  possible  for  years 
to  come.  The  Liberal-Republican  organization  had  been  practically 
dissolved  by  the  disastrous  defeat  of  Mr.  Greeley,  and  the  Democ- 
racy had  been  left  prostrate,  discouraged  and  rent  with  personal 
feuds.  But  the  financial  panic  of  1873  precipitated  a  new  ele- 
ment into  the  political  field,  and  led  to  a  counter-revolution  that 
threatened  to  be  as  irresistible  as  the  Republican  victory  which  it 
followed.  The  first  warning  came  in  the  election  of  William  Allen 
Governor  of  Ohio  in  1873,  over  Edward  F.  Noyes,  the  Republican 
incumbent.  It  was  followed  by  the  defeat  of  General  Dix  and  the 
election  of  Samuel  J.  Tilden  Governor  of  New  York  the  ensuing 
year,  and  by  such  a  re-action  throughout  the  country  as  gave  to  the 
Democratic  party  control  of  the  House  of  Representatives  for  the 
first  time  since  1859. 

The  extent  of  the  political  revolution  was  made  apparent  in  the 
vote  of  the  House  of  Representatives  on  the  6th  of  March,  1875, 
when  the  Forty-fourth  Congress  was  duly  organized.  Michael  C. 
Kerr  of  Indiana,  long  and  favorably  known  as  one  of  the  Democratic 
leaders  of  the  House,  was  nominated  by  his  party  for  Speaker,  and 
the  Republicans  nominated  Mr.  Elaine,  who  for  the  past  six  years 
had  occupied  the  Chair.  Mr.  Kerr  received  173  votes ;  Mr.  Elaine 
received  106.  The  relative  strength  of  the  two  parties  had  therefore 
been  reversed  from  the  preceding  Congress.  It  was  a  species  of 
revolution  which  brought  to  the  front  many  men  not  before  known 
to  the  public. 

—  Among  the  Democrats,  now  the  dominant  party,  the  most  promi- 
nent of  the  new  members  from  the  South  were  John  Randolph 
Tucker  of  Virginia,  a  distinguished  lawyer  who  had  been  Attorney- 
General  of  his  State  and"  always  a  zealous  adherent  of  the  State-rights' 


550  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

school ;  Alfred  M.  Scales  of  North  Carolina,  a  member  of  the  House 
in  1857-59  and  afterwards  Governor  of  his  State ;  Benjamin  H.  Hill 
of  Georgia,  who  had  become  distinguished  as  a  member  of  the  Con- 
federate Senate,  and  who  as  a  popular  orator  and  ready  debater 
had  attained  high  rank  in  the  South ;  Joseph  C.  S.  Blackburn  and 
Milton  J.  Durham  of  Kentucky,  —  the  former  a  fluent  speaker, 
the  latter  an  indefatigable  worker ;  "Washington  C.  Whitthorne  and 
John  D.  C.  Atkins  of  Tennessee,  —  the  latter  a  member  of  the 
House  in  the  Thirty-fifth  Congress ;  John  H.  Reagan  of  Texas,  Con- 
federate Postmaster-General ;  Otho  R.  Singleton  and  Charles  E. 
Hooker  of  Mississippi,  —  the  former  a  member  of  the  House  as  early 
as  1853 ;  Charles  J.  Faulkner  of  West  Virginia,  a  prominent  Demo- 
crat before  the  war,  and  conspicuously  identified  with  the  rebellion ; 
Thomas  L.  Jones  of  Kentucky,  who  had  already  served  in  the  House  ; 
Randall  L.  Gibson  and  E.  John  Ellis,  young  and  ambitious  men  from 
Louisiana ;  and  John  Goode,  jun.,  of  Virginia,  who  had  been  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Confederate  Congress.  The  growing  strength  of  the 
South  was  noticeable  in  the  House,  and  was  the  main  reliance  of 
the  Democratic  party. 

—  From  the  North  the  most  distinguished  Democrats  were  Abram  S. 
Hewitt   and   Scott   Lord   from   New  York ;   Frank   Jones  of  New 
Hampshire,  a  successful  business  man  of  great  and  deserved  popu- 
larity ;  Charles  P.  Thompson,  a  well-known  lawyer  of  Massachusetts ; 
Chester  W.  Chapin,  a  railroad  magnate  from  the  same  State ;  George 
A.  Jenks,  a  rising  lawyer  from  Pennsylvania  ;  John  A.  McMahon  of 
Ohio,  apt  and  ready  in  discussion  ;  Alpheus  S.  Williams  of  Michigan, 
a  West-Point  graduate,  a  General  in  the  civil  war,  and  in  his  younger 
days  an  intimate  friend  and  traveling-companion  of  the  "  Chevalier  " 
WikofY;    William  Jr*itt  Lynde   of   Milwaukee,  a  noted. member  of 
the  Wisconsin  Bar.  —  From  Illinois  three  Democrats  entered  who 
became   active   in   the   partisan   arena   in    after  years, —  Carter  H. 
Harrison,  William  M.  Springer,  and  William  A.  J.  Sparks.     John 
V.   LeMoyne,  son   of  the    eminent   anti-slavery  leader,  Francis   J. 
LeMoyne,  entered  as  a  Democratic  member  from  Chicago. 

—  The  most  prominent  Republicans  among  the  new  members  were 
Martin  I.  Townsend  of  the  Troy  district,  New  York,  not  more  distin- 
guished for  his  knowledge  of  the  law  than  for  his  rare  gifts  of  wit 
and   humor;   Elbridge  G.  Lapham  of  Canandaigua  and  Lyman  K. 
Bass  of  Buffalo,  both  well  known  at  the  bar  of  Western  New  York  ; 
Simeon  B.  Chittenden,  a  successful  merchant  of  the  city  of  New 


THE  FORTY-FOURTH  CONGRESS.  551 

York ;  Winthrop  W.  Ketchum,  for  many  years  in  the  Legislature  of 
Pennsylvania;  Charles  H.  Joyce  of  Vermont,  with  a  good  war 
record ;  William  W.  Crapo,  a  lawyer  with  large  practice  at  New 
Bedford,  Massachusetts ;  Julius  H.  Seelye,  the  able  and  learned 
President  of  Amherst  College ;  Henry  L.  Pierce,  a  well-known 
manufacturer  of  Massachusetts ;  and  Thomas  J.  Henderson  of  Illi- 
nois, a  Brigadier-General  in  the  Union  Army.  —  Henry  W.  Blair  of 
New  Hampshire  was  a  member  of  the  bar,  enlisted  early  in  the  war, 
and  attained  the  rank  of  Lieutenant-Colonel.  He  had  been  in  both 
branches  of  the  Legislature  of  his  State,  and  was  a  leader  in  the 
Prohibition  cause. 

In  the  Senate  the  Democratic  gain,  though  it  had  not  changed 
the  control  of  the  body,  was  very  noticeable.  William  W.  Eaton  of 
Connecticut,  an  old-fashioned  Democrat,  honest,  sincere,  and  out- 
spoken in  his  sentiments,  succeeded  Governor  Buckingham.  Francis 
Kernan  of  New  York,  who  had  already  served  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, took  the  seat  of  Governor  Fenton.  Joseph  E.  McDonald 
of  Indiana,  a  man  of  strong  parts,  succeeded  Daniel  D.  Pratt. 
William  A.  Wallace  of  Pennsylvania,  an  extreme  partisan,  but  an 
agreeable  gentleman  and  loyal  friend,  took  the  place  of  John  Scott. 
Allen  T.  Caperton,  an  estimable  man  who  had  served  in  the  Confed- 
erate Senate,  now  succeeded  Arthur  I.  Boreman  of  West  Virginia. 
Samuel  B.  Maxey  of  Texas,  a  graduate  of  West  Point,  succeeded 
J.  W.  Flanagan.  Charles  W.  Jones  of  Florida  succeeded  Abijah 
Gilbert.  Robert  E.  Withers  of  Virginia  succeeded  John  F.  Lewis. 
Last  and  most  prominent  of  all,  Ex-President  Andrew  Johnson  suc- 
ceeded William  G.  Brownlow  from  Tennessee. 

These  nine  Democrats  took  the  place  of  nine  Republicans,  making 
a  net  difference  in  the  Senate  of  eighteen,  —  a  difference  somewhat 
increased  by  the  fact  that  Francis  M.  Cockrell,  a  decided  Democrat, 
took  the  place  of  Carl  Schurz,  who,  as  between  political  parties,  was 
always  undecided.  Nor  was  this  uniform  series  of  Democratic  gains 
balanced  in  any  degree  by  Republican  gains.  The  new  Republican 
senators  all  took  the  places  of  Republican  predecessors.*  The  other 
new  Democratic  senators  took  the  places  of  Democratic  predecessors. 
The  Republicans  had  lost  the  power  to  command  two-thirds  of  the 
Senate,  and  had  entered  upon  that  struggle  which  led  soon  after  to 
a  contest  for  the  mastery  of  the  body.  More  and  more  it  became 
evident  that  as  the  commissions  of  the  present  Republican  senators 
from  the  South  should  expire,  their  places  would  be  filled  by  Demo- 


552  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

crats ;  and  that  with  thirty-two  senators  in  a  compact  body  from  the 
recent  slave  States,  it  would  require  a  strong  Republican  union  in 
the  North  to  maintain  a  majority. 

Among  the  Republicans  who  now  entered  the  Senate  were  Gen- 
eral Burnside,  who  succeeded  William  Sprague  from  Rhode  Island; 
Angus  Cameron,  who  succeeded  Matthew  H.  Carpenter  from  Wis- 
consin ;  Isaac  P.  Christiancy,  who  succeeded  Zachariah  Chandler 
from  Michigan ;  Samuel  J.  R.  McMillan,  who  succeeded  Alexander 
Ramsey  from  Minnesota.  Henry  L.  Dawes  succeeded  William  B. 
Washburn,  who  had  served  out  the  remnant  of  Mr.  Sumner's  term. 
Newton  Booth,  who  had  been  Governor  of  California,  now  took  his 
seat  in  the  Senate  as  the  colleague  of  Mr.  Sargent.  Governor  Booth 
had  suddenly  come  into  prominence  on  the  Pacific  coast,  and  though 
professing  a  general  allegiance  to  the  Republican  party,  he  had  been 
and  continued  to  be  somewhat  independent  in  his  views  and  his 
votes,  especially  upon  railroad  questions. 


Ex-President  Johnson  signalized  his  return  by  beginning  in  the 
Senate  just  where  he  had  left  oft'  in  the  Presidency.  Two  weeks 
after  the  session  convened  he  seized  the  occasion  of  a  resolution  re- 
lating to  Louisiana  affairs  to  recount  some  incidents  in  his  own 
Administration,  and  gave  to  his  whole  speech  the  color  of  a  vin- 
dictive attack  upon  President  Grant.  The  motive  was  somewhat 
concealed  under  decorous  language,  but  the  attack  was  nevertheless 
personal  and  direct.  He  assailed  Sheridan's  military  administration 
in  Louisiana,  defended  that  of  General  Hancock,  accused  President 
Grant  of  designing  to  seize  a  third  term  of  his  office,  imputed  evil 
motives  to  him  for  accepting  gifts  from  friends,  considered  the  liber- 
ties of  the  country  in  danger  from  his  administration,  and  thought 
that  his  tyranny  was  not  concealed  by  the  gloved  hand.  He  seemed 
to  have  nursed  his  wrath  during  the  six  years  he  had  passed  in  pri- 
vate life,  and  to  have  aspired  to  the  Senate  simply  for  the  revival  of 
animosities  and  for  the  renewal  of  controversies  with  those  for  whom 
he  cherished  special  hatred. 

The  impression  made  upon  the  Senate  and  upon  the  country  by 
Mr.  Johnson's  speech  was  unpleasant.  His  anger,  peculiarly  unbe- 
coming his  years  and  his  station,  was  directed  especially  against  the 
men  who  would  not  follow  him  in  his  desertion  of  the  party  which 


DEATH  OF  ANDREW  JOHNSON.  553 

had  elevated  him  to  power.  At  least  twice  before,  in  the  history  of 
the  Federal  Government,  it  had  been  demonstrated  that  a  President 
who  for  any  cause  runs  counter  to  the  views  and  wishes  of  the  party 
that  elected  him  is  doomed  to  disappointment,  and  is  fortunate  if  he 
escape  disgrace.  Mr.  Johnson  had  drunk  the  cup  of  humiliation  to 
its  dregs,  and  the  remaining  energies  of  his  life  seemed  now  devoted 
to  the  punishment,  or  at  least  the  denunciation,  of  those  who  had 
obstructed  and  defeated  his  policies  while  President.  Revenge  is 
always  an  ignoble  motive,  pardonable,  if  at  all,  when  inspired  by 
the  hot  blood  of  youth,  but  to  be  regarded  as  not  only  lamentable 
but  pitiable  in  men  who  approach  threescore  and  ten.  The  extra 
session  closed  on  the  24th  of  March.  Mr.  Johnson  did  not  live  to 
resume  his  seat.  On  the  last  day  of  the  ensuing  July  (1875)  he 
died  peacefully  at  his  home  in  East  Tennessee  among  friends  who 
had  watched  his  progress  from  poverty  and  illiteracy  to  the  highest 
position  in  the  Republic.  He  was  in  the  sixty-seventh  year  of  his 
age. 


The  annual  message  of  the  President  contained  no  reference  to 
the  condition  of  the  South.  The  stringent  and  persistent  prosecution 
in  the  United  States  courts  of  members  of .  the  organized  bands  of 
Ku-Klux  had  tended  to  dissolve  that  organization  and  to  restrain  its 
members  from  the  commission  of  such  outrages  as  had  distinguished 
the  earlier  period  of  their  existence.  There  was  hope  in  the  minds 
of  sanguine  people  of  the  North  that  an  era  of  peace  and  harmony 
had  begun  in  the  South,  which  would  be  characterized  by  a  fair 
recognition  of  the  rights  of  all  the  population,  that  free  suffrage 
would  be  protected,  that  the  hand  of  violence  would  be  stayed, 
and  that  the  Centennial  year  would  find  every  State  of  the  Repub- 
lic in  the  enjoyment  of  material  prosperity,  of  the  fair  administration 
of  the  law,  of  the  enforcement  of  equal  rights. 

No  body  of  men  rejoiced  over  this  prospect  more  heartily  than 
Republican  senators  and  representatives,  for  if  it  should  prove  true 
they  would  have  cause  of  gratulation  both  as  patriots  and  partisans. 
The  complete  pacification  of  the  country  on  the  basis  of  equal  and 
exact  justice  was  the  leading  desire  of  all  right-minded  men,  and  the 
free  suffrage  which  this  implied  would  give  to  the  Republicans  the 
opportunity  for  a  fair  trial  of  strength  in  the  advocacy  of  their  prin- 
ciples before  the  Southern  people.  The  picture  was  one  which  would 


554  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

well  adorn  the  great  National  anniversary  so  near  at  hand,  but  many 
men  feared  that  it  was  a  picture  only  and  not  a  reality. 

An  occasion  arose  four  weeks  after  the  delivery  of  the  President's 
message,  to  test  the  real  feelings  of  the  House  concerning  the  South- 
ern question.  Mr.  Randall  of  Pennsylvania  introduced  a  bill  removing 
the  political  disabilities  from  every  person  in  the  United  States. 
Since  the  broad  Act  of  Amnesty  in  1872,  which  excepted  only  a  few 
classes  from  its  operation,  a  considerable  number  of  Southern  gen- 
tlemen had  been  relieved  upon  individual  application ;  but  the  mass 
of  those  excepted  were  still  under  the  disability.  The  disposition  of 
the  Republicans  was  to  grant  without  hesitation  an  amnesty  almost 
universal,  the  exceptions,  with  a  majority  of  the  party  probably, 
being  limited  to  three  persons,  —  Jefferson  Davis,  Robert  Toombs, 
and  Jacob  Thompson.  Mr.  Randall  brought  his  bill  to  a  vote  on 
the  10th  of  January,  1876.  By  the  Constitution  it  required  a  vote 
of  two-thirds,  but  fell  short  of  the  number,  the  ayes  being  175,  the 
noes  97.  The  negative  vote  was  wholly  Republican ;  while  the  affirm- 
ative vote  included  all  the  Democratic  members  together  with  a 
small  number  of  Republicans. 

Mr.  Elaine  moved  to  amend  by  excepting  Jefferson  Davis  from 
the  benefits  of  the  bill.  The  situation  was  peculiar.  Upon  a  direct 
vote,  if  the  amendment  were  submitted,  very  few  Republicans  could 
be  found  who  would  include  Mr.  Davis  by  name  in  the  amnesty; 
and  there  was  a  large  number  of  Democrats  who  wished  to  be  saved 
from  the  embarrassment  implied  in  such  a  procedure.  They  appre- 
ciated the  difference  between  voting  for  a  bill  of  general  amnesty 
which  included  Jefferson  Davis  without  name,  and  voting  for  an 
amendment  Avhich  named  him  and  him  only  for  restoration  to  eligi- 
bility to  any  office  under  the  Government  of  the  United  -States.  No 
punishment  was  inflicted  upon  Mr.  Davis ;  no  confiscation  of  his 
property  was  attempted  or  desired ;  Congress  did  not  wish  to  deny 
him  the  right  of  suffrage.  He  was  simply  deprived  of  the  right  to 
aspire  to  the  honors  of  the  Republic.  The  Democrats  being  a 
majority  of  the  House  could  prevent  the  amendment  of  the  bill,  and 
the  Republicans  being  more  than  one-third  could  prevent  the  passage 
of  the  bill.  It  was  a  singular  case  of  playing  at  parliamentary 
cross-purposes,  and  afforded  the  ground,  as  it  proved  in  the  end, 
for  a  prolonged  and  somewhat  exciting  discussion. 

The  reason  assigned  for  excepting  Jefferson  Davis  was  not  that 
he  had  been  a  rebel,  for  rebels  were  restored  by  thousands ;  not  that 


DEBATE  ON  AMNESTY  BILL.  555 

he  had  been  in  Congress,  for  Southern  Congressmen  were  restored  by 
scores  if  not  by  hundreds ;  not  that  he  had  been  the  chief  of  the  revo- 
lutionary government,  for  that  would  only  be  a  difference  of  degree 
in  an  offense  in  which  all  had  shared.  The  point  of  objection  was  that 
Mr.  Davis,  with  the  supreme  power  of  the  Confederacy  in  his  hands, 
both  military  and  civil,  had  permitted  extraordinary  cruelties  to  be 
inflicted  upon  prisoners  of  war.  He  was  held  to  be  legally  and 
morally  responsible,  in  that,  being  able  to  prevent  the  horrors  of 
Andersonville  prison,  he  did  not  prevent  them. 

The  debate  took  a  somewhat  wide  range,  engaging  Mr.  Elaine 
and  General  Garfield  as  the  leading  participants  on  the  Republican 
side,  and  Benjamin  H.  Hill,  Mr.  Randall,  and  Mr.  Cox  on  the  Demo- 
cratic side.  Upon  a  second  effort  to  pass  the  bill  with  an  amend- 
ment requiring  an  oath  of  loyalty  as  a  prerequisite  to  removal  of 
disabilities,  it  failed  to  secure  the  necessary  two-thirds,  the  ayes  being 
184,  the  noes  97.  All  that  the  Republicans  demanded  was  a  vote  on 
the  exclusion  of  Jefferson  Davis,  and  this  was  steadily  refused.  Many 
gentlemen  of  the  South  are  still  under  disability  because  of  the  par- 
liamentary tactics  pursued  by  the  Democratic  party  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  at  that  time.  If  a  vote  had  been  allowed  on  Jeffer- 
son Davis,  his  name  would  have  been  rejected,  and  the  bill,  which 
included  even  Robert  Toombs  and  Jacob  Thompson,  would  have 
been  passed  without  delay.  If  Mr.  Davis  thought  that  he  was  un- 
generously treated  by  the  Republicans,  he  must  have  found  ample 
compensation  in  the  conduct  of  both  Southern  and  Northern  Demo- 
crats, who  kept  seven  hundred  prominent  supporters  of  the  rebellion 
under  disability  for  the  simple  and  only  reason  that  the  Ex-President 
of  the  Confederacy  could  not  share  in  the  clemency. 


CHAPTER    XXIV. 

THE  PUBLIC  CREDIT.  —  FIRST  LAW  ENACTED  UNDER  PRESIDENT  GRANT.  —  DEMOCRATIC 
OPPOSITION.  —  THURMAN,  GARRETT  DAVIS,  BAYARD.  —  PRESIDENT  GRANT'S  FIRST 
MESSAGE.  —  FUNDING  BILLS  DISCUSSED.  —  ACTION  OF  BOTH  HOUSES. —DEBATES. — 
FURTHER  REDUCTION  OF  REVENUE. —PREMIUM  ON  GOLD.  — MEETING  OF  FORTY- 
SECOND  CONGRESS.  —  FINANCIAL  DEBATES.  —  FINANCIAL  PANIC  OF  1873.  —  FORTY- 
THIRD  CONGRESS  MEETS.  —  PRESIDENT  GRANT'S  POSITION.  —  ABOLITION  OF  MOIETIES. 

—  SPECIE  PAYMENTS. — RESUMPTION  ACT.  —  SPECIAL  MESSAGE  OF  THE  PRESIDENT. 

—  ADMISSION  OF  COLORADO.  —  DEATH  OF  SPEAKER  KERR.  —  SAMUEL  J.  RANDALL 
HIS  SUCCESSOR. 

r  I  THE  course  of  President  Grant's  Administration  in  regard  to  the 
JL  Finances  had  proved  in  all  respects  successful.  The  first  bill 
which  received  his  signature  was  the  Act  "  to  strengthen  the  public 
credit,"  approved  March  18,  1869.  It  pledged  the  Government  to 
the  payment  in  coin,  or  its  equivalent,  of  all  obligations,  notes,  and 
bonds,  except  those  where  the  law  authorizing  the  issue  stipulated 
that  payment  might  be  made  in  "lawful  money,"  which  simply  meant 
legal-tender  notes.  The  demand  for  this  declaratory  Act  arose  from  a 
desire  to  undo  the  evil  which  had  been  caused  by  the  resolution  of  the 
Democratic  party  in  the  preceding  Presidential  election  in  favor  of 
paying  all  public  debts  in  paper,  except  where  coin  was  specifically 
named  in  the  law.  The  position  of  each  party  was  therefore  precisely 
the  reverse  of  the  other :  the  Republicans  held  the  normal  law  of 
payment  of  Government  obligations  to  be  in  coin,  unless  payment 
in  paper  money  had  been  previously  agreed  upon  ;  the  Democrats 
held  that  all  Government  obligations  might  be  discharged  in  paper, 
unless  payment  in  coin  had  been  previously  agreed  upon.  This  was 
the  division  line  in  the  Presidential  canvass  of  1868,  and  it  was  the 
division  line  among  parties  in  the  Forty-first  Congress.  In  the  House, 
where  the  Act  had  been  reported  by  General  Schenck,  the  vote  on 
its  passage  was  98  ayes  to  47  noes.  No  Democrat  voted  in  the  affirm- 
ative. A  few  Republicans,  under  the  lead  of  General  Butler,  voted 
in  the  negative. 

556 


STRENGTHENING  THE  PUBLIC  CREDIT.  557 

When  the  Act  was  reported  to  the  Senate,  Mr.  Thurman  offered 
an  amendment  declaring  that  "  nothing  in  this  Act  shall  apply  to  the 
obligations  commonly  called  Five-twenty  bonds."  This  would  reserve 
three-fourths  of  the  bonded  debt  from  the  operation  of  the  law,  and 
would  effectually  defeat  its  object.  Every  Democrat  in  the  Senate 
who  voted  on  the  question,  voted  in  favor  of  Mr.  Thurman's  amend- 
ment. Mr.  Morton  of  Indiana  and  one  or  two  other  Republican 
senators  voted  with  the  Democrats,  but  the  amendment  was  defeated 
by  a  decisive  vote. 

—  Mr.   Garrett  Davis  offered  an  amendment,   "that  the   just   and 
equitable  measure  of  the  obligation  of  the  United  States  upon  their 
outstanding  bonds,  is  the  value  at  the  time  in  gold  and  silver  coin 
of  the  paper  currency  advanced  and  paid  to  the  Government  on 
those  bonds."     Mr.  Davis  argued  earnestly  in  favor  of  his  amend- 
ment.    He  declared  it  to  be  "  robbery  and  iniquity  for  this  Congress 
to  make  the  people  of  the  United  States  pay  nearly  $900,000,000 
more  than  by  law  and  equity  they  are  bound  to  pay." 

—  Mr.  Bayard  seconded  the  arguments  of  Mr.  Davis.     "Suppose, 
instead  of  issuing  paper  money,"  said  Mr.  Bayard,  "  it  had  pleased 
Congress  to  order  a  debasement  of  our  National  coinage.     Suppose 
twenty-five  per  cent  more  of  alloy  or  worthless  metal  had  been  inter- 
jected into  our  currency,  and  with  that  base  coinage  men  had  come 
forward  to  buy  your  bonds,  what  would  be  thought  of  the  man  who, 
when  the  day  of  payment  of  those  bonds  arrived,  should  say,  4 1  gave 
you  lead,  or  lead  in  certain  proportions  ;  but  for  all  the  worthless 
metal  I  handed  you,  you  must  give  me  back  pure  gold  '  ?     Whether 
he  was  more  maddened  or  more  dishonest  would  be  the  only  ques- 
tion arising  in  men's  minds."     Mr.  Bayard  used  this  analogy  to  illus- 
trate the  wrong  of  paying  the  bonds  of  the  Government  in  coin,  and 
expressed  the  belief  that  the  debasing  of  the  coinage  would  have 
been  "  far  more  Constitutional  and  right  than  the  power  which  Con- 
gress exercised  when  they  issued  paper  money." 

When  President  Grant  sent  his  first  annual  message  to  Congress 
(December,  1869),  the  National  debt,  less  cash  in  the  Treasury, 
amounted  to  $2,453,559,735,  the  cash  being  $194,674,947.  The  aggre- 
gate obligations  bearing  interest  in  coin  had  risen  to  $2,107,938,000  ; 
while  the  three  per  cent  certificates  and  the  Navy  pension-fund, 
which  alone  carried  interest  in  currency,  amounted  to  $61,195,000. 
The  debt  bearing  no  interest,  composed  of  old  demand-notes,  legal- 
tenders,  fractional  currency,  and  certificates  for  gold  deposited,  had 


558  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

fallen  to  $431,861,763.  The  seven-thirty  notes  had  disappeared  from 
the  financial  statement,  and  the  bonds  authorized  by  the  Act  of 
March  3,  1865,  amounted  to  1958,455,700.  The  rate  of  interest  on 
the  bonds  still  stood  at  six  per  cent,  except  on  the  old  debt  of  1858 
and  1860,  and  upon  $194,567,300  of  the  ten-forties  issued  under 
the  Act  of  March  3,  1864.  One  of  the  chief  recommendations  in 
the  President's  message  was  the  refunding  of  the  debt  in  bonds, 
with  interest  not  exceeding  four  and  a  half  per  cent.  He  urged 
legislation  for  redeeming  the  legal-tenders  at  their  market  value,  at 
the  option  of  the  holder,  increasing  the  rate  from  day  to  day  or  week 
to  week.  He  believed  "  that  immediate  resumption,  even  if  practi- 
cable, would  not  be  desirable,"  but  that  "  a  return  to.  a  specie  basis 
should  be  commenced  immediately."  He  expressed  the  belief  that 
the  revenue  might  be  at  once  reduced  $60,000,000  or  possibly  $80,- 
000,000  a  year.  In  connection  with  this  feature  of  the  message, 
Secretary  Boutwell  submitted  a  well-matured  plan  for  funding  the 
debt  and  expressed  entire  confidence  in  its  success. 

The  result  was  the  refunding  Act  of  July  14,  1870.  It  was  a 
broad  and  effective  measure.  It  was  subsequently  modified  by  the 
Act  of  Jan.  20,  1871,  permitting  the  payment  of  interest  quarterly, 
and  increasing  the  amount  of  bonds  bearing  five  per  cent  interest. 
The  two  laws  for  purposes  of  refunding,  taken  together,  authorized 
the  issue  of  $500,000,000  at  five  per  cent,  $300,000,000  at  four  and  a 
half  per  cent,  and  $1,000,000,000,  at  four  per  cent,  —  all  to  be  pay- 
able in  coin,  to  be  exempt  from  taxation,  and  to  be  issued  without 
any  increase  of  the  debt.  The  fives  were  redeemable  after  ten  years, 
the  four-and-a-halfs  after  fifteen  years,  the  fours  after  thirty  years. 
The  laws  were  not  enacted  without  considerable  legislative  contro- 
versy. The  exemption  from  taxation  and  the  payment  in  coin  were 
stubbornly  though  unsuccessfully  resisted.  A  proposition  to  state 
the  interest  in  sterling  money  and  in  francs,  as  well  as  in,  dollars,  so 
that  the  bonds  might  be  more  easily  negotiated  abroad,  was  vigorously 
pressed,  but  was  happily  defeated. 

Further  reduction  of  the  revenue  was  effected  by  the  Act  of 
July  4,  1870.  There  was  an  earnest  effort  to  repeal  the  income  tax, 
but  it  was  retained  for  the  year,  and  was  to  terminate  at  the  end  of 
1871.  The  duties  on  tea,  coffee,  sugar,  and  some  articles  of  iron  and 
steel,  were  diminished.  In  presenting  the  conference  report  Mr. 
Schenck  estimated  that  the  reduction  in  customs  charges  by  the 
Bill  would  be  $27,000,000,  and  in  the  internal  taxes  more  than 


THE  POLICY  OF  REFUNDING  THE  DEBT.  559 

$50,000,000.  Many  persons  feared  that  the  reduction  of  taxes  was 
too  rapid,  but  it  was  impossible  to  resist  a  movement  so  popular 
as  the  removal  of  the  burdens  left  by  the  war.  Under  such  a  pres- 
sure it  was  probable  that  Congress  might  not  have  sufficient  regard 
to  the  prospective  needs  of  the  Government. 

The  condition  of  trade,  wise  legislation,  and  the  hope  of  refunding 
the  debt  with  rapid  reduction  of  interest,  were  producing  beneficent 
results ;  but  the  expectations  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in 
regard  to  the  prompt  sale  of  the  new  bonds  were  rudely  shocked  by 
the  war  between  France  and  Germany,  which  was  declared  imme- 
diately after  Congress  had  clothed  him  with  enlarged  powers.  At 
home,  as  well  as  in  Europe,  the  money  markets  were  so  far  disturbed 
that  prudence  forbade  immediate  action.  After  a  necessary  post- 
ponement and  careful  preparation  Mr.  Boutwell  gave  notice  that 
on  March  6,  1871,  books  would  be  opened  in  this  country  and  in 
Europe  for  subscriptions  to  the  bonds.  Preference  was  awarded  to 
subscribers  for  the  five  per  cents  within  the  limit  of  $ 200,000,000. 
On  the  anniversary  of  the  passage  of  the  Act,  July  14,  1871,  a 
proposition  came  from  a  syndicate  of  London  bankers  to  take  the 
whole  amount  of  the  five  per  cents.  The  National  banks,  with  a 
few  individuals  in  this  country,  subscribed  for  $117,518,950,  and  the 
residue  was  conceded  to  the  foreign  syndicate. 

The  leading  arguments  in  the  House  for  the  policy  of  refunding 
were  made  by  Mr.  Dawes  and  by  Mr.  Ellis  H.  Roberts.  The  gain 
to 'the  Government,  as  they  proved,  would  be  obvious  and  great. 
If  the  new  bonds  were  exchanged  for  the  whole  amount  of  six 
per  cents  already  issued,  and  were  to  run  only  till  the  time  of  re- 
demption, the  saving,  without  compounding  interest,  would  amount 
to  an  enormous  aggregate,  certainly  exceeding  $600,000,000.  The 
country  was  therefore  disappointed  that  events  beyond  the  '  sea 
had  for  a  time  suspended  the  operations  of  funding,  and  compelled 
the  Treasury  to  maintain  its  high  rate  of  interest.  The  suspension 
was  not  due  to  the  neglect  or  mismanagement  of  any  executive  offi- 
cer, or  to  lack  of  foresight  on  the  part  of  Congress  in  providing 
the  requisite  legislation.  It  was  simply  a  case  in  which  the  money 
market  for  the  time  prevented  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  from 
accomplishing  any  large  proportion  of  the  total  funding  operations 
contemplated  by  the  Government. 


560  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

When  the  Forty-second  Congress  met  in  December,  1871,  the  gold 
premium  was  110&  fa)  11  Of.  The  funding  process  was  in  its  early 
stages.  Specie  was  going  to  Europe  at  the  rate  of  $66,000,000  per 
annum,  and  the  balance  of  trade  for  that  fiscal  year  was  running 
against  the  United  States  to  the  amount  of  1183,000,000.  It  was  a 
period  of  financial  theories.  The  prejudice  against  National  banks 
seemed  to  increase,  and  the  fiat  of  a  Government  so  rich  and  pow- 
erful as  that  of  the  United  States  would,  it  was  maintained,  suffice 
to  make  all  the  notes  it  might  put  out  available  for  money,  and 
the  volume  ought  to  be  abundant  enough  to  stimulate  every  nerve 
of  production  and  trade. 

Against  such  appeals  the  more  conservative  sentiment  of  the  coun- 
try held  that  honor  and  safety  demanded  the  redemption  of  the 
United-States  notes  in  coin  at  the  earliest  practicable  day.  The 
steps  proposed  to  this  end  were  extreme  and  therefore  unwise.  A 
large  number  of  financiers  urged  the  repeal  of  the  legal-tender 
clause,  the  funding  of  the  notes  into  bonds  with  some  limitations, 
and  further  contraction  of  their  volume  by  direct  withdrawal.  The 
argument  was  presented  that  if  a  man  could  not  pay  his  overdue 
note  he  would  deem  it  a  privilege  to  give  a  new  obligation  to  run 
on  interest  for  a  longer  period,  and  the  Nation  ought  to  prove 
itself  as  honest  as  its  citizens.  This  specious  plea  assumed  that  the 
legal-tender  note  was  simply  a  promise  to  pay,  with  only  the  qualities 
of  an  individual  obligation.  It  neglected  to  consider  its  different  and 
essential  character  as  a  circulating  medium.  The  advocates  of  the 
repeal  of  the  legal-tender  clause  included  many  able  lawyers,  who 
however  did  not  meet  the  objection  that  this  clause  was  an  element 
in  the  value  of  the  currency,  only  less  important  than  that  of  positive 
redemption.  Nor  did  they  seem  to  perceive  that  the  abrogation  of 
this  feature  in  the  contract  between  the  Government  and  the  note- 
holders would  lead  to  confusion  and  distress  in  commercial  circles, 
and  would  violate  the  obligations  of  common  honesty. 

The  debate  went  on  in  Congress  and  in  the  press,  but  no  general 
scheme  of  legislation  could  be  agreed  upon.  Congress  took  up  the 
tariff  and  the  internal  revenue,  and  passed  the  Acts  of  March  5,  May 
1,  and  June  6,  1872.  By  the  first  Act,  all  internal  taxes  were  re- 
moved from  fish,  fruits,  and  meats.  By  the  second,  all  duties  on  tea 
and  coffee  were  absolutely  removed  after  the  first  day  of  the  ensuing 
July,  reducing  the  revenue  by  this  single  Act  to  the  extent  of 
$20,000,000  per  annum.  The  last  Act  (June  6)  made  a  reduction 


FINANCIAL  PANIC   OF  1873.  561 

of  ten  per  cent  in  the  customs  duties  on  all  importations  of  cotton, 
wool,  iron,  steel,  paper,  rubber,  glass,  and  leather,  with  a  number  of 
specific  changes  in  the  tariff,  and  a  large  addition  to  the  free  list. 
The  effect  of  the  three  Acts  upon  the  revenue  of  the  Government 
was  a  diminution  of  144,000,000  in  custom  receipts  and  $20,650,000 
in  internal  taxes.  The  machinery  for  collecting  the  internal  revenue 
was  greatly  simplified  and  improved.  A  proposition  introduced  by 
Mr.  Clinton  L.  Merriam  of  New  York  proved  to  be  of  great  con- 
venience and  safety  to  the  National  banks.  It  permitted  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  to  issue  certificates  of  deposit  in  denominations 
of  $5,000  without  interest,  in  exchange  for  notes,  and  these  certifi- 
cates became  available  for  the  reserves  of  the  banks  and  for  settle- 
ments of  clearing-house  balances. 


The  Forty-third  Congress  met  in  a  period  of  discouragement 
and  disaster.  The  financial  panic  which  swept  over  New  York  in 
the  preceding  September  (1873)  was  followed  by  deep  depression 
throughout  the  country.  Wrecks  of  business  enterprises  were  every- 
where visible,  the  financial  markets  of  the  world  were  disturbed 
and  alarmed,  doubt  and  hesitation  filled  the  minds  of  senators  and 
representatives.  A  black  flag  seemed  to  overhang  the  finances  of  the 
Government  as  well  as  of  individuals.  Plans  for  funding  the  public 
debt  were  checked,  the  movement  for  resumption  was  weakened. 
The  situation  gave  fresh  arguments  to  the  champions  of  the  fiat 
dollar.  It  affected  commerce  and  diminished  the  revenue  by  arrest- 
ing production  and  by  reducing  imports.  The  division  of  opinion 
among  senators  and  representatives  was  very  pronounced,  as  was 
shown  in  the  bills  introduced,  in  the  amendments  submitted,  and 
still  more  significantly  in  the  debates  upon  the  President's  message. 
The  first  definite  action  was  upon  a  currency  bill  introduced  in  the 
Senate.  As  reported  from  the  Finance  Committee,  the  first  section 
fixed  the  maximum  limit  of  United-States  notes  at  $382,000,000. 
The  limit  was  raised  to  $400,000,000  on  motion  of  Mr.  Wright  of 
Iowa,  and  the  Senate  refused  to  allow  any  clause  for  future  reduc- 
tion. This  was  $44,000,000  beyond  the  amount  of  legal-tender 
notes  then  in  circulation.  An  enlargement  of  the  circulation  of  the 
National  banks  was  made  at  the  same  time,  by  which  in  connection 
with  the  greenbacks  there  might  be  an  addition  of  $100,000,000  to 

VOL.  II,  35 


562  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

the  paper  currency  of  the  country.  The  two  Houses  differed  as  to 
details,  but  soon  agreed  upon  a  bill  containing  the  general  provisions 
proposed  in  the  Senate. 

This  action  of  Congress  followed  an  earnest  popular  demand, 
resulting  from  the  distrust  which  had  become  so  general  in  conse- 
quence of  the  panic.  A  large  proportion  of  the  business  men, 
especially  in  the  West  and  South-West,  believed  that  an  increased 
circulation  of  notes  would  bring  great  relief.  At  the  beginning 
of  the  session  of  Congress,  President  Grant  had  clearly  intimated 
that  he  had  come  to  the  same  conclusion.  He  said  in  his  annual 
message :  "  In  view  of  the  great  actual  contraction  that  has  taken 
place  in  the  currency,  and  the  comparative  contraction  continu- 
ously going  on,  due  to  the  increase  of  manufactures  and  all  the 
industries,  I  do  not  believe  there  is  too  much  of  it  now  for  the  dullest 
period  of  the  year.  Indeed,  if  clearing-houses  should  be  established, 
thus  forcing  redemption,  it  is  a  question  for  your  consideration 
whether  banking  should  not  be  made  free,  retaining  all  the  safe- 
guards now  required  to  secure  bill-holders."  But  nearly  five  months 
had  elapsed  since  the  President  had  expressed  these  views,  and  during 
that  time  he  had  come  to  more  conservative  conclusions,  and  he  now 
vetoed  the  bill,  which  did  not  seem  so  radical  in  its  provisions  as 
his  own  recommendation  had  been.  To  make  National  banking 
free  before  compelling  the  banks  to  redeem  their  notes  in  coin,  would 
have  proved  a  measureless  inflation,  and  the  President  wisely  receded 
from  the  position  assumed  in  his  annual  message. 

An  important  Act,  changing  the  Customs  laws,  was  reported  from 
the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  by  Mr.  Ellis  H.  Roberts,  who 
had  made  the  investigation  which  led  to  it  with  great  care  and 
sagacity.  It  received  the  assent  of  both  branches,  though  some 
amendments  were  added  to  it  in  the  Senate.  It  was  radical  in  its 
nature.  It  changed  methods  which  had  prevailed  from  the  foun- 
dation of  the  Government,  and  it  has  withstood  all  criticism  since 
its  enactment.  Instead  of  moieties  and  perquisites  theretofore 
allowed  to  customs  officers  in  the  chief  cities  for  the  detection  of 
frauds  upon  the  revenue,  specific  salaries  were  established ;  and  the 
modes  of  procedure  against  violators  of  the  law  were  more  clearly 
defined,  and  made  more  efficient. 


DEMOCRATIC  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  ELECTED.    563 

The  various  propositions  in  this  Congress  fairly  illustrate  the 
conflicting  views  on  financial  matters  held  among  the  people.  The 
business  depression  continued.  The  country  looked  to  Congress  for 
relief,  and  yet  did  not  agree  upon  any  measure  of  relief.  The  party 
in  the  majority  was  held  responsible  for  the  condition  of  industry 
and  trade,  and  the  elections  in  the  autumn  of  1874  showed  how 
wide-spread  and  intense  was  the  dissatisfaction  with  the  existing 
order  of  things.  The  very  freedom  and  breadth  of  discussion  which 
were  essential  to  secure  unity  of  action  were  taken  as  ground  of 
censure,  and  the  failure  to  provide  for  a  return  to  specie  payment 
was  brought  as  an  indictment  against  the  majority  in  Congress  by 
those  who  had  shown  the  least  faith  in  the  National  credit  and  the 
least  regard  for  the  National  honor. 

For  the  first  time  since  the  organization  of  the  Republican  party 
and  its  accession  to  power  in  the  Union,  an  opposition  majority  was 
elected  to  the  House  of  Representatives.  The  Republican  leaders 
took  warning,  and  agreed  that  before  losing  control  of  the  lower 
House  they  would  secure  the  passage  of  an  Act  for  the  resumption 
of  specie  payment.  President  Grant  and  Secretary  Bristow  were 
earnest  in  recommending  a  measure  of  that  character.  Personal 
conferences  to  compare  views,  to  consolidate  Republican  opinion, 
and  to  induce  harmony  of  action  were  held  early  in  the  second  ses- 
sion of  the  Forty-third  Congress.  Concessions  were  made,  a  middle 
ground  was  secured,  and  a  measure  was  finally  perfected.  The  long 
discussion  had  demonstrated  the  difficulties  of  the  situation.  But 
public  necessity  and  party  interest  combined  to  induce  a  sacrifice  of 
financial  theories  in  order  that  practical  results  might  be  achieved. 

The  bill  reported  to  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Sherman  on  the  21st  of 
December  (1874)  embodied  the  conclusions  which  had  been  reached 
in  private  conferences.  The  next  day  he  gave  notice  that  he  would 
press  it  to  an  immediate  vote.  Mr.  Thurman  and  Mr.  Schurz  spoke 
of  it  as  a  party  measure  agreed  upon  in  caucus.  The  former  argued 
at  some  length  against  the  bill.  The  latter  stated  that  "  with  the 
present  volume  of  currency  it  is  impossible  to  resume  and  maintain 
redemption,"  and  he  sought  unsuccessfully  to  secure  the  cancella- 
tion of  legal-tender  notes  at  the  rate  of  $2,000,000  per  month.  Mr. 
Bayard  charged  that  the  bill  was  rather  adverse  than  favorable  to 
resumption.  The  Senate  passed  the  bill  on  the  same  day  by  a  vote 
of  32  to  14.  Not  a  single  Democratic  member  of  the  Senate  sup- 
ported it.  The  negative  vote  was  Democratic,  with  the  exception 
of  Sprague  of  Rhode  Island  and  Tipton  of  Nebraska. 


564  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

The  House  did  not  consider  the  bill  until  the  7th  of  January, 
directly  after  the  holidays.  It  was  then  passed  by  125  ayes  to  106 
noes,  a  much  closer  vote  than  had  been  anticipated.  The  Democrats 
were  unanimous  against  it,  and  were  strengthened  by  the  accession 
of  some  twenty  Republicans.  These  were  of  two  classes.  Judge 
Kelley  stood  as  the  representative  of  one,  deeming  it  unwise  and 
premature  to  force  specie  payment  at  that  time ;  the  other  class  was 
represented  by  Mr.  Dawes  and  the  Messrs.  Hoar  of  Massachusetts, 
General  Hawley  of  Connecticut,  and  some  others  from  New  England, 
who  thought  the  measure  that  came  from  the  Senate  was  incomplete, 
in  that  it  did  not  provide  for  specie  payment  soon  enough,  or  take 
means  sufficiently  energetic  to  secure  it  at  the  date  named.  With 
these  exceptions  the  Act  was  a  Republican  measure,  unanimously 
opposed  by  the  Democratic  party. 

In  approving  the  Act  President  Grant  took  the  somewhat 
unusual  step  of  sending  to  the  Senate  a  special  message.  While 
declaring  the  measure  a  subject  of  congratulation,  he  suggested  fur- 
ther legislation  to  make  it  more  effective.  His  recommendations 
included  first  an  increase  of  the  revenue ;  second  the  redemption  of 
legal-tender  notes  in  coin,  reckoned  at  a  premium  of  ten  per  cent  in 
the  beginning  and  gradually  diminishing  until  the  date  named  in  the 
Act  for  resumption ;  third  an  addition  to  the  facilities  for  coinage,  in 
one  or  more  of  the  Western  cities,  so  as  to  save  to  the  miner  the  cost 
of  transporting  bullion  to  the  principal  mint  at  Philadelphia.  Con- 
gress responded  only  to  the  first  of  the  President's  recommendations. 

The  policy  of  increasing  the  revenue  became  the  subject  of  ear- 
nest discussion  for  the  remainder  of  the  Forty-third  Congress.  The 
rapid  repeal  of  taxes,  in  which  each  session  of  Congress  had  vied 
with  the  one  preceding  it  for  a  series  of  years,  had  produced  its 
legitimate  result  in  an  impending  deficiency  in  the  Treasury.  This 
was  now  remedied  by  the  Act  approved  March  3,  1875,  to  protect 
the  sinking-fund  and  provide  for  the  exigencies  of  the  Government. 
This  Act  repealed  the  provision  for  a  reduction  of  ten  per  cent  in 
certain  customs  duties  under  the  Act  of  June  6,  1872,  which  had 
really  been  passed  without  full  consideration  or  due  appreciation  of 
its  probable  effect.  The  Act  also  increased  the  duties  on  sugars  and 
certain  other  articles,  raised  the  tax  on  spirits  from  70  to  90  cents 
a  gallon,  and  on  tobacco  from  20  to  24  cents  per  pound,  and  modified 
in  many  respects  the  regulations  concerning  the  collection  of  reve- 
nue from  these  products. 


RESUMPTION  OF  SPECIE  PAYMENT.  565 

Such  was  the  action  as  originally  devised  for  resumption  of  specie 
payment.  The  most  remarkable  feature  of  the  bill  to  that  end  was 
the  promptness  with  which  it  was  passed,  after  the  long  period 
of  preparatory  debate  in  both  Houses  of  Congress  on  the  subject. 
Nearly  ten  years  had  elapsed  since  the  war  closed,  and  although  the 
subject  was  one  which  constantly  engaged  the  attention  of  finan- 
ciers and  to  a  large  extent  enlisted  the  interest  of  the  public,  it  had 
never  been  framed  into  a  practical  legislative  measure.  It  had  now 
been  accomplished,  as  might  well  be  said,  in  a  day.  The  pressure 
upon  the  Republicans,  caused  by  the  Democratic  victory  of  the  pre- 
ceding autumn,  was  very  great.  The  Democratic  senators  r.nd 
representatives,  though  recording  themselves  unanimously  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  measure,  were  not  willing  to  risk  its  defeat  by  the  parlia- 
mentary strategy  of  delay,  as  they  might  easily  have  done.  Their 
party  leaders  had  no  faith  in  the  measure,  but  they  knew  how 
troublesome  was  the  subject;  they  knew  that  it  had  proved  the 
stumbling-block  in  the  Republican  policy  for  years,  and  they  were 
more  than  willing  that  it  should  be  taken  out  of  the  way  on  the 
eve  of  their  accession  to  the  control  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. If  the  Act  should  prove  to  be  successful  their  hostility  to 
it  might  be  forgotten  and  they  could  well  arraign  their  opponents 
for  so  long  neglecting  to  enact  it.  If  on  the  other  hand  it  should 
prove  unsuccessful,  it  would  remain  a  standing  reproach  to  the  finan- 
cial policy  of  the  Republican  party.  Benefits  as  they  well  knew  are 
soon  forgotten,  while  injuries  are  tenaciously  remembered ;  and  this 
they  believed  was  as  true  of  parties  as  of  persons.  In  short,  as  the 
leaders  of  the  Democracy  viewed  it,  the  Resumption  Act,  passed  over 
their  combined  vote,  could  do  them  no  harm,  while  the  chances  were 
that  it  would  inure  to  their  advantage. 


The  Territory  of  Colorado,  which  was  prevented  by  Andrew 
Johnson  from  entering  the  Union  in  1866,  was  now,  after  the  lapse 
of  ten  years,  admitted  as  a  State  under  a  bill  approved  by  General 
Grant  in  the  closing  year  of  his  Presidency.  The  Territory  had  in 
the  long  interval  developed  great  wealth  in  the  precious  metals,  in 
rich  deposits  of  iron  and  coal,  and  most  surprising  of  all,  in  its 
agricultural  resources.  The  two  senators,  Jerome  B.  Chaffee  and 
Henry  M.  Teller,  were  kinsmen  and  were  among  the  pioneers  of  the 


566  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Territory  who  had  been  deeply  concerned  in  its  progress  and  develop- 
ment. Mr.  Chaffee  had  represented  the  Territory  .in  Congress  for 
the  six  years  immediately  preceding  its  admission  as  a  State,  and  had 
worked  with  energy  and  success  for  the  interest  of  his  constituents. 
He  was  somewhat  impaired  in  health  when  he  took  his  seat  in  the 
Senate,  and  did  not  desire  to  remain  in  public  life.  Mr.  Teller  con- 
tinued in  the  Senate  for  a  longer  period,  and  acquired  political 
leadership  in  his  State. 


Michael  C.  Kerr,  who  was  elected  Speaker  of  the  Forty-fourth 
Congress,  was  prevented  by  ill-health  from  presiding  for  any  consid- 
erable length  of  time.  Owing  to  marked  symptoms  of  pulmonary 
disease  he  was  warned  by  friends  that  he  should  not  accept  a  position 
so  laborious  and  so  exhausting  as  the  Speakership.  It  was  beyond 
his  strength.  He  died  during  the  Congressional  recess  on  the  19th 
of  August,  1876,  in  the  fiftieth  year  of  his  age.  At  the  meeting  of 
Congress  in  the  following  December,  Samuel  J.  Randall  of  Pennsyl- 
vania (who  had  been  Mr.  Kerr's  competitor  in  the  Democratic  cau- 
cus) was  chosen  Speaker.  He  had  represented  a  Philadelphia  district 
for  thirteen  years  and  had  acquired  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the 
rules  and  methods  of  the  House.  He  is  a  strong  partisan,  with  many 
elements  of  leadership.  He  is  fair-minded  towards  his  political 
opponents,  generous  to  his  friends,  makes  no  compromise  with  ene- 
mies, never  neglects  his  public  duties,  and  never  forgets  the  interests 
of  the  Democratic  party. 


CHAPTER  XXV. 

PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  OF  1876.  —  REPUBLICAN  CANDIDATES  FOB  NOMINATION.  —  CON- 
VENTION AT  CINCINNATI,  JUNE  14,  1876. — REPUBLICAN  PLATFORM. —  BALLOTING. — 
NOMINATION  OF  HAYES  AND  WHEELER.  —  DEMOCRATIC  NATIONAL  CONVENTION.— 
SAMUEL  J.  TILDEN  THE  PRINCIPAL  CANDIDATE.  —  His  CAREER.  —  OTHER  DEMO- 
CRATIC CANDIDATES.  —  TILDEN  AND  HENDRICKS  NOMINATED.  —  DEMOCRATIC  PLAT- 
FORM.—  THE  CANVASS.  —  THE  RESULT.  —  DOUBTFUL  STATES. — POPULAR  EXCITE- 
MENT. —  DISPUTE  IN  LOUISIANA,  FLORIDA,  SOUTH  CAROLINA.  —  PRESIDENT  GRANT'S 
COURSE.  —  A  PORTENTOUS  QUESTION.  —  ELECTORAL  COMMISSION.  —  MEMBERS.  — 
QUESTIONS  BEFORE  THEM.  —  DECISION.  —  HAYES  AND  WHEELER  ELECTED.  —  SUB- 
SEQUENT INVESTIGATION.  —  POTTER  COMMITTEE.  —  DISCOVERY  OF  TELEGRAMS.  — 
ATTEMPTS  AT  BRIBERY  IN  THE  SOUTH. 

"OETWEEN  I860  and  1876  the  Presidential  nominations  of  the 
1)  Republican  party  had  been  predetermined  and  practically  unop- 
posed. The  second  nomination  of  Mr.  Lincoln  and  the  two  nomi- 
nations of  General  Grant  were  so  unmistakably  dictated  by  public 
opinion  that  they  came  without  a  contest.  In  1876,  for  the  first 
time  since  the  Republican  party  had  acquired  National  power,  the 
candidate  was  not  selected  in  advance,  and  the  National  Convention 
met  to  make  a  choice,  not  simply  to  register  a  popular  decree.  'This 
freedom  of  action  imparted  a  personal  interest  to  the  preliminary 
canvass  and  a  struggle  in  the  Convention  itself,  which  previous 
nominations  had  lacked.  The  public  excitement  was  enhanced  by 
the  close  and  doubtful  balance  between  the  two  parties.  For  the 
first  time  since  its  original  success,  the  power  of  the  Republican 
party  had  been  seriously  broken  in  1874.  The  war  and  reconstruc- 
tion periods  were  receding,  and  with  the  lessening  stress  of  their 
demands,  the  popular  conviction  of  the  necessity  of  Republican  rule 
was  losing  much  of  its  force.  New  questions  were  pressing  for- 
ward, and  parties  were  largely  judged  by  these  later  tests. 

The  open  field  and  free  choice  on  the  Republican  side  developed 
several  competitors  for  the  nomination.  —  Senator  Morton  of  Indiana 
naturally  held  a  prominent  place.  His  ability,  his  party  devotion,  his 
fearless  services  as  the  War  Governor  of  a  State  which  was  disturbed 

567 


568  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

with  tumult  and  sedition,  his  conspicuous  part  in  the  Reconstruction 
contests  in  the  Senate,  all  marked  him  as  entitled  to  great  consider- 
ation. 

—  Senator  Conkling  was  earnestly  sustained  by  the  Republican  or- 
ganization of  New  York,  of  which  he  was  then  the  undisputed  chief. 
His  friends  went  to  the  National  Convention  with  the  power  of  the 
largest   delegation   and  with   the  influence  of  the   most  important 
State.     He  had  the  additional  aid  of  the  good  will  and  good  wishes 
of  President  Grant. 

—  Mr.  Bristow  of  Kentucky  was  also  a  candidate.     As  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  he  had  been  zealous  in  pushing  investigation  and 
prosecution  of  the  whiskey  frauds  then  rife.     His  mode  of  procedure 
created  the  impression  that  he  was  acting  independently  of  the  Ad- 
ministration of  which  he  was  a  part,  if  not  in  studied  conflict  with  it, 
and  this  demonstration,  while  objectionable  to  many,  commended  him 
to  a  considerable  body  of  Republicans  who  were  inclined  on  that 
account  to  associate  him  with  the  growing  cry  for  administrative  re- 
form.    He  had   the  advantage  also  of  strong  local  influence.     He 
came  from  a  State  adjoining  the  city  where  the  Convention  was  to 
be  held,  and  through  the  newspapers  the  surrounding  atmosphere 
was  colored  in  his  favor. 

- —  But  Ohio,  which  has  long  held  a  prominent  part  in  shaping 
the  National  counsels,  had  a  candidate  more  distinctively  her  own. 
Rutherford  B.  Hayes  had  been  chosen  Governor  the  preceding  year 
under  circumstances  which  attested  his  popular  strength.  In  1873 
the  Democrats  had  elected  the  venerable  William  Allen,  and  had  won 
a  still  more  emphatic  victory  the  following  year  in  choosing  members 
of  the  House  of  Representatives.  In  1875  the  Republicans  put  for- 
ward General  Hayes  to  defeat  Mr.  Allen  and  reclaim  the  State,  and 
his  success  vindicated  the  wisdom  of  their  choice.  He  had  already 
served  two  terms  as  Governor,  and  was  regarded  as  a  safe  and  judi- 
cious executive.  He  was  entirely  free  from  factional  entanglements, 
and  was  considered  by  many  wise  political  leaders  to  be  a  peculiarly 
available  candidate. 

—  The  delegates  from  Pennsylvania,  like  those  from  Ohio,  presented 
their  Governor  as  a  candidate.     But  worthy  as  General  Hartranft 
was  conceded  to  be,  the  circumstances  surrounding  the  movement  for 
him  inspired  the  general  belief  that  he  was  brought  forward  less  with 
the  expectation  of  a  serious  effort  on  his  behalf  than  for  the  purpose  of 
making  his  candidacy  the  means  of  holding  the  delegation  in  hand. 


REPUBLICAN  NATIONAL  CONVENTION.  569 

—  The  only  other  candidate  who  had  an  active  support  was  Mr. 
Elaine  of  Maine. 

The  National  Convention  met  at  Cincinnati  on  the  14th  of  June 
and  became  at  once  the  centre  of  popular  attention.  Among  the 
delegates  were  many  men  of  position  and  influence  in  their  respec- 
tive States,  and  some  with  national  reputation.  Massachusetts  sent 
E.  Rockwood  Hoar,  George  F.  Hoar,  Richard  A.  Dana,  jun.,  and 
James  Russell  Lowell.  Among  the  Maine  delegates  were  Eugene 
Hale,  William  P.  Frye,  Nelson  Dingley,  jun.,  Charles  A.  Boutelle,  and 
Seth  L.  Milliken.  General  Hawley  and  Samuel  Fessenden  came  from 
Connecticut,  and  Governor  Van  Zandt  and  Nelson  W.  Aldrich  from 
Rhode  Island.  New  York  had  a  strong  representation,  including 
Alonzo  B.  Cornell,  Theodore  M.  Pomeroy,  James  N.  Matthews  of  the 
Buffalo  Express,  George  William  Curtis,  Stewart  L.  Woodford,  Clar- 
ence A.  Seward,  William  H.  Robertson,  Charles  Emory  Smith,  then 
editor  of  the  Albany  Journal,  Frank  Hiscock,  and  Thomas  C.  Platt. 
The  Ohio  delegation  was  led  by  the  venerable  Senator  Wade  and  by 
Governor  Noyes0  J.  Donald  Cameron,  then  Secretary  of  War,  Henry 
M.  Hoyt,  afterwards  Governor,  General  Bingham,  John  Cessna,  and 
Edward  McPherson,  appeared  at  the  head  of  the  Pennsylvania  forces. 

Among  other  notable  delegates  were  Robert  G.  Ingersoll  and 
Charles  B.  Farwell  of  Illinois ;  Richard  W.  Thompson  of  Indiana ; 
Judge  Harlan,  later  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  Ex-Attorney-General 
Speed  of  Kentucky;  Governor  Packard  and  Senator  Kellogg  of 
Louisiana  ;  Henry  P.  Baldwin  and  William  A.  Howard  of  Michigan  ; 
William  J.  Sewall,  George  A.  Halsey,  Garrett  A.  Hobart,  and  Fred- 
erick Potts  of  New  Jersey ;  Alexander  Ramsey  and  Dwight  M. 
Sabin  of  Minnesota ;  John  P.  Jones  of  Nevada ;  Nathan  Goff,  jun., 
of  West  Virginia;  Philetus  Sawyer  of  Wisconsin  ;  Jerome  B.  Chaffee 
and  Henry  M.  Teller  of  Colorado,  —  all  of  whom  were  then  or  at  a 
later  period  prominent  in  the  public  councils.  Theodore  M.  Pomeroy 
of  New  York  was  made  temporary  chairman  of  the  Convention,  and 
Edward  McPherson  of  Pennsylvania  permanent  president.  The  first 
day  was  chiefly  occupied  with  political  addresses. 

The  report  of  the  committee  on  resolutions  was  looked  for  with 
especial  interest.  The  exigent  political  issue  of  the  hour  was  the 
Currency  question.  Congress  had  the  year  before  passed  the  Re- 
sumption Act  providing  for  a  return  to  specie  payments  in  1879. 
While  there  was  no  serious  conflict  among  Republicans  over  the  gen- 
eral policy,  there  were  differences  of  opinion  as  to  the  wisdom  of 


570  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

explicitly  endorsing  the  act  with  its  designation  of  time  arid  its  obli- 
gation of  immediate  preparatory  measures.  A  long  struggle  took 
place  in  the  committee  on  these  points  and  on  cognate  questions. 
After  a  protracted  debate  the  whole  subject  of  framing  the  plat- 
form was  entrusted  to  a  sub-committee,  composed  of  General  Hawley, 
Ex-Attorney-General  Speed,  Governor  Dingley  of  Maine,  Governor 
Chamberlain  of  South  Carolina,  James  H.  Howe  of  Wisconsin,  Gov- 
ernor C.  C.  Waters  of  Arkansas,  and  Charles  Emory  Smith  of  New 
York.  Several  of  these  gentlemen  possessed  experience  in  the  line 
of  duty  to  which  they  were  assigned.  The  youngest  man  of  the  list, 
Mr.  Emory  Smith,  then  editor  of  the  Albany  Journal,  had  for  years 
taken  part  in  preparing  the  platforms  for  Republican  conventions  in 
New  York,  and  had  become  distinguished  for  the  skill  and  felicity 
of  his  language,  the  aptness  with  which  he  embodied  the  popular 
thought,  and  the  precision  with  which  he  described  the  issue  at  stake. 

The  platform  reported  to  the  Convention  was  clear  and  emphatic 
upon  the  leading  issues.  It  improved  the  occasion  of  the  Centennial 
year  to  repeat  the  cardinal  truths  and  principles  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence ;  it  recognized  the  pacification  of  the  South  and  the 
protection  of  all  its  citizens  as  a  sacred  duty ;  the  enforcement  of 
the  Constitutional  Amendments  was  enjoined ;  and  the  obligation  of 
removing  any  just  cause  of  discontent  was  coupled  with  that  of  secur- 
ing to  every  American  citizen  complete  liberty  and  exact  equality 
in  the  exercise  of  all  civil,  political,  and  public  rights ;  the  Public 
Credit  Act,  the  measure  first  signed  by  President  Grant,  was  referred 
to  with  the  declaration  that  its  "  pledge  must  be  fulfilled  by  a  contin- 
uous and  steady  progress  to  specie  payments."  The  platform  also  em- 
braced a  distinct  declaration  for  a  radical  reform  of  the  civil  service, 
making  a  broader  and  more  precise  enunciation  than  was  contained 
in  the  Liberal  platform  of  1872,  though  the  assigned  reason  for  that 
revolt,  as  given  by  its  champions,  was  the  alleged  hostility  of  the 
Republican  party  to  improvement  in  the  Government  service.  The 
Protective  policy  was  upheld ;  the  extirpation  of  polygamy  was  de- 
manded ;  and  an  investigation  into  the  Chinese  question,  then  begin- 
ning to  distract  California,  was  recommended. 

With  the  platform  adopted,  the  Convention  proceeded  at  once  to 
the  task  of  nominating  candidates.  Mr.  Thompson  of  Indiana  pre- 
sented Senator  Morton.  The  name  of  Mr.  Bristow  was  submitted  by 
Judge  Harlan,  and  supported  by  Mr.  Curtis  and  Richard  H.  Dana,  jun. 
Colonel  Ingersoll  followed  in  advocacy  of  Mr.  Elaine,  with  a  speech 


REPUBLICAN  NATIONAL  CONVENTION.  571 

which  placed  him  at  once  in  the  front  rank  of  popular  orators. 
He  was  seconded  by  Mr.  Frye  of  Maine,  and  by  Mr.  Turner,  a 
well  known  colored  preacher  from  Georgia.  Senator  Conkling  was 
eloquently  presented  by  Mr.  Stewart  L.  Woodford;  and  Governor 
Hayes  by  Ex-Governor  Noyes,  with  a  few  words  of  approval  from 
Ex-Senator  Wade.  Marshall  Jewell  was  nominated  by  Mr.  Kellogg  of 
Connecticut ;  and  General  Hartranft  by  Lynn  Bartholomew  of  Penn- 
sylvania. The  speeches,  as  a  whole,  were  pointed  and  inspiring. 
Under  their  stimulating  influence  the  Convention  was  eager  to  begin 
the  balloting,  but  the  gathering  shades  of  evening  compelled  an 
adjournment  to  the  next  morning. 

With  the  opening  of  the  third  day  the  Convention  immediately 
proceeded  to  the  first  ballot.  The  result  was :  Elaine  285,  Morton 
124,  Bristow  113,  Conkling  99,  Hayes  61,  Hartranft  58,  Jewell  11, 
William  A.  Wheeler  3.  Hartranft's  58  was  the  solid  vote  of  Penn- 
sylvania ;  Hayes  had  the  solid  44  of  Ohio  and  a  few  scattering  votes 
from  other  States ;  Conkling  had  all  but  one  of  New  York's  70,  with 
8  from  Georgia,  7  from  North  Carolina,  and  the  remainder  scatter- 
ing ;  Morton's  vote,  apart  from  the  30  of  Indiana,  came  wholly  from 
the  South ;  Bristow's  support  was  divided  among  nineteen  States  and 
one  Territory ;  and  Elaine's  vote  came  from  twenty-eight  States  and 
seven  Territories. 

The  second  ballot,  taken  after  the  Convention  had  decided  against 
the  unit  rule  and  allowed  each  delegate  to  vote  as  he  chose,  showed 
a  gain  of  11  votes  for  Elaine,  1  for  Bristow,  3  for  Hayes,  and  5  for 
Hartranft,  with  a  loss  of  4  for  Morton  and  of  6  for  Conkling.  Jewell 
had  dropped  out.  The  third  and  fourth  ballots  proceeded  without 
any  material  change.  On  the  fifth  ballot  the  solid  vote  of  Michigan 
was  cast  for  Governor  Hayes,  and  other  changes  were  made  which 
carried  his  aggregate  to  104 ;  while  Morton  fell  to  95.  On  the  sixth 
ballot  the  vote  for  Elaine  rose  to  308,  and  that  for  Hayes  to  113, 
while  other  candidates  lost.  When  the  seventh  ballot  opened  New 
York  retired  for  consultation  on  one  side  of  the  hall,  and  Pennsylva- 
nia on  the  other.  It  was  evident  that  the  decisive  moment  had  come. 
As  the  roll-call  advanced,  other  candidates  were  withdrawn  and  it 
became  a  contest  between  Hayes  and  Elaine.  A  large  majority  of  the 
supporters  of  Morton,  Conkling  and  Bristow  went  to  Hayes.  Penn- 
sylvania gave  28  votes  for  Hayes  and  30  for  Elaine.  The  ballot  as 
concluded  stood,  Hayes  384,  Elaine  351,  and  Bristow  21.  The  last 
named  all  favored  Governor  Hayes  and  his  nomination  was  there- 


572  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

upon  made  unanimous.  For  the  Vice-Presidency  William  A.  Wheeler 
and  Stewart  L.  Woodford  of  New  York,  Marshall  Jewell  and  Joseph 
R.  Hawley  of  Connecticut,  and  Frederick  T.  Frelinghuysen  of  New 
Jersey,  were  indicated ;  but  before  the  close  of  the  first  ballot  Mr. 
Wheeler  was  nominated  by  acclamation. 

The  ticket  thus  presented  was  a  surprise  to  the  country.  The 
candidates  like  all  who  are  nominated  against  public  expectation, 
failed  to  excite  enthusiasm  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  canvass.  But 
both  were  regarded  as  able,  judicious,  and  prudent  men,  and  they 
steadily  grew  in  public  favor  as  the  contest  waxed  warm.  Governor 
Hayes  had  not  been  prominent  during  his  brief  service  in  Congress ; 
but  his  repeated  election  over  the  strongest  Democrats  of  Ohio,  and 
his  three  terms  as  Governor,  had  made  an  excellent  impression  on  the 
country.  He  was  especially  respected  for  the  firmness  and  fidelity 
with  which  he  waged  battle  for  honest  money  against  the  finan- 
cial heresies  which  had  at  that  time  taken  deep  root  in  his  State. 
Mr.  Wheeler  had  achieved  reputation  in  Congress  as  a  discreet  legis- 
lator and  a  practical  man  of  affairs,  and  was  cordially  received  by 
the  different  factions  which  at  that  time  divided  the  Republican 
party  of  New  York. 


The  Democratic  National  Convention  assembled  at  St.  Louis  two 
weeks  after  the  nomination  of  Hayes  and  Wheeler.  The  party 
leaders  and  managers  came  together  with  more  hope  of  success  than 
they  had  dared  to  entertain  at  any  period  since  the  beginning  of  the 
civil  war.  The  Democratic  victories  of  1874  had  encouraged  them 
with  a  confidence  which  the  partial  re-action  of  1875  had  not 
diminished.  They  were  recovering  possession  of  the  South ;  they 
were  profiting  from  political  discontent  in  the  North  which  they 
strove  in  every  way  to  develop  ;  they  were  gaining  in  assurance  just 
in  proportion  as  the  war  feeling  was  dying  out ;  and  they  were  reap- 
ing the  usual  advantage  of  the  opposition  party  in  a  period  of  finan- 
cial depression.  Learning  wisdom  from  the  blundering  course  of 
1868  and  the  disastrous  experiment  of  1872,  they  were  now  to  uplift 
the  banner  of  pure  Democracy  under  Democracy's  most  skillful 
leadership. 

Interest  in  the  movement  was  deepened  by  the  organized  and 
irresistible  force  with  which  Mr.  Samuel  J.  Tilden  had  assumed 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  SAMUEL  J.  TILDEK  573 

leadership  and  was  advancing  to  the  Presidential  nomination.  Mr. 
Tilden  was  in  some  respects  the  most  striking  figure  in  the  Demo- 
cratic party  since  Andrew  Jackson.  Though  more  than  threescore, 
he  had  been  a  conspicuous  party  chief  only  three  or  four  years. 
He  had  moved  forward  to  unchallenged  personal  supremacy  with 
a  vigor  and  rapidity  which  in  the  political  life  of  the  United  States 
had  seldom  been  equaled.  His  sudden  elevation  was  not  the  result 
of  accidental  circumstances  of  which  he  was  the  fortunate  beneficiary. 
He  was  the  conscious  and  masterful  creator  of  his  position.  The 
sceptre  of  power  in  the  Democratic  party  did  not  drop  into  his 
hands ;  he  seized  it,  and  wielded  it  at  his  own  will.  He  moulded 
the  conditions  which  suited  his  designs,  and  when  the  hour  was 
come  he  assumed  the  command  as  of  divine  right. 

But  though  he  thus  blazed  forth  with  unexpected  brilliancy,  his 
whole  life  had  in  fact  been  a  school  of  preparation.  His  public  career 
in  official  position  had  it  is  true  been  limited.  He  served  in  the  Le- 
gislature of  1846  and  in  the  Constitutional  Conventions  of  1846  and 
1867.  In  both  he  bestowed  especial  attention  upon  the  canal  policy 
of  the  State.  He  bore  a  prominent  part  with  Mr.  Van  Buren  in  the 
Barnburners'  Revolt  of  1848,  in  which  he  and  some  of  his  associates 
departed  for  a  brief  period  from  a  lifelong  pro-slavery  record,  and 
rode  Free-soil  as  the  stalking-horse  of  personal  resentments  and 
factional  designs.  He  professed  devotion  to  the  Wilmot  Proviso  as 
earnestly  as  one  of  the  old  Abolitionists,  and  turned  from  it  as  if 
its  advocacy  had  been  the  amusement  of  a  summer  vacation.  He 
occasionally  appeared  in  National  Conventions,  and  he  acted  for 
some  years  as  chairman  of  the  Democratic  State  Committee  of  New 
York.  This  was  the  total  of  his  public  service  until  he  set  forth 
upon  what  was  the  immediate  preliminary  movement  to  his  Presi- 
dential campaign. 

But  from  his  earliest  manhood  he  had  been  a  close  student  of 
political  affairs.  He  was  a  devotee  of  Jackson  in  his  youth,  and 
became  one  of  the  ardent  disciples  of  Van  Buren,  whom  he  adopted 
as  mentor  and  model.  His  earlier  political  papers  are  dignified  and 
elevated  in  tone  beyond  his  years,  and  show  a  strong  intellect  and 
careful  reflection ;  but  they  are  in  the  stately  and  turgid  style  of  the 
period  and  lack  the  decisive  and  original  force  of  his  later  productions. 

Even  when  he  followed  the  vigorous  Dean  Richmond  as  chairman 
of  the  Democratic  State  Committee,  he  did  not  suggest  the  creative 
political  power  which  he  afterwards  revealed.  He  was  regarded 


5T4  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

rather  as  a  respectable  figure-head.  It  was  on  this  assumption  that 
he  escaped  complicity  in  the  notorious  election  frauds  of  New  York 
in  1868.  His  name  was  appended  to  the  private  call  for  the  earliest 
possible  approximate  returns  from  the  interior,  a  call  which  meant 
that  the  authors  only  wanted  a  clue  to  determine  how  large  a  ma- 
jority must  be  counted  in  the  metropolis  to  secure  the  State.  Mr. 
Tilden  denied  all  knowledge  of  the  letter.  Without  even  consulting 
him,  his  authority  had  been  appropriated  by  the  "  Tweed  Ring,"  just 
then  rising  to  its  colossal  power.  During  the  entire  period  of  its 
profligate  ascendency,  Mr.  Tilden  continued  as  chairman  of  the  State 
Committee,  but  he  did  not  share  its  corrupt  counsels  or  sanction  its 
audacious  schemes.  The  worst  reproach  which  lies  against  him  is  that 
of  remaining  too  long  a  passive  witness.  There  was  no  bond  of  affilia- 
tion between  him  and  the  vulgar  adventurers  who  had  taken  the 
Democratic  party  and  the  city  of  New  York  by  the  throat.  He  had 
no  sympathy  with  their  coarse  and  reckless  measures.  Aside  from  his 
abhorrence  of  their  riotous  corruption  every  instinct  of  self-preserva- 
tion impelled  him  to  desire  their  overthrow,  for  while  they  ruled  he 
had  little  hope  of  influence  or  preferment.  When  the  exposure  of 
their  monstrous  robberies  had  opened  the  way  to  their  downfall,  Mr. 
Tilden  grappled  with  the  menaced  Ring  and  helped  to  complete  its 
destruction.  He  labored  to  capture  its  intrenchments  in  the  Legis- 
lature, fought  the  conspiracy  with  a  non-partisan  combination,  went 
to  the  Assembly  himself,  co-operated  in  the  legal  prosecution,  pro- 
moted the  impeachment  of  the  corrupt  judges,  and  proved  a  powerful 
and  capable  ally  in  rescuing  the  State  from  this  shameful  domination. 
The  extermination  of  the  "  Tweed  Ring  "  was  Mr.  Tilden's  oppor- 
tunity. His  hour  had  come  :  he  promptly  grasped  the  party  leader- 
ship thus  left  open.  Starting  out  deliberately  for  the  Presidential 
nomination,  his  plan  embraced  three  leading  features :  his  stepping- 
stone  was  the  governorship,  his  shibboleth  was  administrative  reform, 
his  method  was  organization  to  a  degree  which  has  never  been  sur- 
passed. He  was  swept  into  the  Governor's  chair  on  the  crest  of 
the  Democratic  tidal  wave  in  1874,  and  once  there  every  effort  was 
directed  to  the  Presidential  succession.  He  had  the  sagacity  to  per- 
ceive that  in  order  to  gain  any  solid  foothold  in  the  country  the 
Democratic  party  needed  to  cut  loose  from  its  discredited  past  and 
secure  a  new  rallying-cry.  It  was  loaded  down  with  its  odious  war 
record ;  it  was  divided  on  fiscal  questions ;  it  had  fought  a  losing 
battle  for  twelve  years  on  the  defensive ;  and  if  it  was  to  struggle 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF  SAMUEL  J.  TILDEN.  575 

with  any  hope  it  must  discover  a  line  on  which  it  could  boldly  take 
the  aggressive. 

Mr.  Tilden  fancied  that  he  found  this  pathway  to  a  new  career 
in  the  resounding  demand  for  a  radical  reform  of  administrative 
methods,  and  from  the  hour  of  his  accession  to  the  governorship  he 
sought  to  give  it  effect  in  reality  or  in  semblance.  He  had  received 
applause  and  secured  promotion  from  his  aid  in  the  overthrow  of  the 
"Tweed  Ring,"  and  he  now  declared  war  against  the  affiliated 
"  Canal  Ring,"  whose  destruction  had  already  been  made  sure.  The 
circumstances  were  peculiarly  propitious  for  his  whole  movement. 
The  extinguishment  of  the  war  debt  of  the  State,  already  nearly 
accomplished,  would  bring  an  immediate  and  large  reduction  of 
taxes.  The  amendment  to  the  State  Constitution  (already  passed 
and  just  producing  its  effect)  prohibiting  any  taxation  or  any  appro- 
priation for  expenditures  on  the  canals,  beyond  their  revenues,  would 
starve  the  Canal  Ring  by  cutting  off  its  supply.  Mr.  Tilden  became 
Governor  at  the  right  hour  to  reap  the  harvest  which  others  had 
sown.  It  is  seldom  that  any  administration  is  signalized  by  two 
events  so  impressive  and  far-reaching  as  the  crumbling  of  a  formid- 
able and  long-intrenched  foe  to  honest  administration  like  the  Tweed 
Ring,  and  a  decrease  of  the  tax  budget  by  nearly  one-half.  It  was 
Mr.  Tilden's  rare  fortune  that  his  Governorship  was  coincident  with 
these  predetermined  and  assured  results.  It  would  be  unjust  to  deny 
to  him  the  merit  of  resisting  the  canal  extortionists  and  hastening 
their  extinction,  but  it  would  be  equally  untrue  not  to  say  that  in 
the  work  of  the  reformer  he  did  not  forget  the  shrewd  calculations 
of  the  partisan.  He  understood  better  than  any  other  man  the  art  of 
appropriating  to  himself  the  credit  of  events  which  would  have  come 
to  pass  without  his  agency,  and  of  reforms  already  planned  by  his 
political  opponents. 

By  a  fortunate  concurrence  of  conditions  which  he  partly  made, 
and  which  with  signal  ability  he  wholly  turned  to  account,  Mr. 
Tilden  thus  gained  the  one  commanding  position  in  the  Democratic 
party.  He  held  the  most  vital  State  of  the  North  in  his  grasp.  He 
embodied  the  one  thought  which  expressed  the  discontent  with 
Republicanism  and  the  hope  of  the  Democracy.  He  evinced  a 
power  of  leadership  which  no  man  in  his  party  could  rival.  The 
Democracy  before  his  day  could  count  but  four  chiefs  of  the  first 
rank  —  Jefferson,  Madison,  Jackson,  and  Van  Buren.  Mr.  Tilden 
was  not  indeed  a  leader  of  the  same  class  with  these  masters 


576  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

who  for  so  long  a  period  shaped  the  whole  thought  and  policy 
of  their  party,  but  he  displayed  political  capacity  of  a  very  high 
order.  He  was  trained  in  the  school  of  the  famous  Albany  Regency, 
and  had  exhibited  much  of  its  ingenuity  and  power.  He  placed  his 
reliance  both  upon  ideas  and  organization.  He  sought  to  captivate 
the  popular  imagination  with  a  striking  thought,  and  he  supported  it 
with  the  most  minute  and  systematic  work.  In  his  own  State  he 
discarded  all  leaders  of  equal  rank  with  himself,  and  selected  active 
young  men  or  mere  personal  followers  as  his  lieutenants.  He  bore 
no  brother  near  the  throne.  In  other  States  he  secured  strong  alli- 
ances to  promote  his  interests,  and  called  into  existence  a  National 
force  which  was  as  potent  as  it  was  compact. 

His  political  observations  covered  nearly  half  a  century,  and 
spanned  the  successive  epochs  which  stretched  from  the  struggle  over 
Nullification  to  the  war  of  secession  and  the  work  of  Reconstruc- 
tion. But  through  most  of  this  long  and  stirring  era  he  was  en- 
gaged in  the  practice  of  his  profession  and  the  acquisition  of  wealth. 
In  this  work  he  was  peculiarly  successful.  To  the  subtlety  of  an 
acute  legal  mind  he  added  the  sagacity  of  a  keen  business  man. 
He  attained  especial,  indeed  almost  unrivaled  eminence  as  a  cor- 
poration lawyer,  and  thus  gained  a  practice  which  leads  to  larger 
rewards  than  can  be  found  in  other  legal  fields.  While  acquiring 
great  reputation  he  amassed  a  great  fortune,  and  when  at  last  he 
entered  upon  his  political  career  he  combined  the  resources  of  a  full 
treasury  with  the  arts  of  an  unrivaled  manager. 

Mr.  Tilden  has  been  the  subject  of  vehement  and  contradictory 
judgments.  His  friends  have  well-nigh  canonized  him  as  represent- 
ing the  highest  type  of  public  virtue ;  his  foes  have  painted  him  as 
an  adept  in  craft  and  intrigue.  His  partisans  have  held  him  up  as 
the  evangel  of  a  new  and  purer  dispensation ;  his  opponents  declare 
that  his  ability  is  marred  by  selfishness  and  characterized  by  cun- 
ning. His  followers  have  exalted  him  as  the  ablest  and'  most  high- 
minded  statesman  of  the  times ;  his  critics  have  described  him  as  a 
most  artful,  astute,  and  unscrupulous  politician.  The  truth  doubt- 
less lies  between  the  two  extremes.  Adroit,  ingenious  and  wary, 
skillful  to  plan  and  strong  to  execute,  cautious  in  judgment  and 
vigorous  in  action,  taciturn  and  mysterious  as  a  rule  and  yet  singu- 
larly open  and  frank  on  occasions,  resting  on  the  old  traditions  yet 
leading  in  new  pathways,  surprising  in  the  force  of  his  blows  and 
yet  leaving  a  sense  of  reserved  power,  Mr.  Tilden  unquestionably 


DEMOCRATIC  NATIONAL  CONVENTION.  577 

ranks  among  the  greatest  masters  of  political  management  that  our 
day  has  seen.  Certain  it  is  that  his  extraordinary  success  and  his 
exceptional  position  had  inspired  the  Democratic  party  with  the  con- 
viction that  he  was  the  one  man  to  command  victory,  and  he  moved 
forward  to  the  Presidential  nomination  with  a  confidence  which  dis- 
couraged his  opponents  and  inspired  his  supporters  with  a  sense  of 
irresistible  strength. 


When  the  Convention  assembled  a  futile  attempt  was  made  to 
organize  a  movement  against  Mr.  Tilden.  His  undisguised  autocracy 
in  New  York  had  provoked  jealousies  and  enmities  which  were  more 
imposing  in  names  than  in  numbers.  John  Kelly,  now  the  master- 
spirit of  reconstructed  Tammany,  and  esteemed  as  a  man  of  personal 
integrity,  led  an  implacable  warfare,  openly  proclaiming  that  Mr. 
Tilden's  nomination  would  prove  fatal  to  Democratic  success  in 
New  York.  In  this  pronounced  hostility  Mr.  Kelly  had  the  avowed 
approval  or  the  secret  sanction  of  conspicuous  Democrats  whom  Mr. 
Tilden's  absorption  of  power  had  thrust  into  the  background.  Au- 
gustus Schell,  chairman  of  the  National  Committee,  encouraged  the 
opposition  ;  Erastus  Corning  was  on  the  ground  sustaining  it ;  Chief 
Justice  Church  and  his  friends  were  known  to  be  in  sympathy  with 
it.  Attempts  were  made  to  secure  support  for  Governor  Allen  of 
Ohio,  for  Governor  Hendricks  of  Indiana,  and  for  General  Hancock ; 
but  no  one  of  these  demonstrations,  nor  all  of  them  combined,  could 
resist  the  steady  set  of  the  current  towards  Mr.  Tilden,  and  the 
organization  and  all  the  action  of  the  Convention  were  clearly  in 
the  hands  of  his  friends. 

The  interests  of  Mr.  Tilden  were  committed  to  the  care  of  Mr. 
Dorsheimer,  who  had  left  the  Republican  ranks  but  four  years  before. 
His  chief  associate  was  Senator  Kernan.  The  most  prominent  dele- 
gates from  other  States  were  William  A.  Wallace  and  Samuel  J. 
Randall  of  Pennsylvania,  James  R.  Doolittle  and  William  F.  Vilas  of 
Wisconsin,  Judge  Abbott  of  Massachusetts,  Daniel  W.  Yoorhees  and 
Governor  Williams  of  Indiana,  Leon  Abbott  of  New  Jersey,  General 
Thomas  Ewing  of  Ohio,  Robert  M.  McLane  of  Maryland,  John  A. 
McClernand  of  Illinois,  and  Henry  Watterson  of  Kentucky.  The 
opening  speech  of  Mr.  Augustus  Schell,  as  chairman  of  the  National 
Committee,  was  notable  only  in  demanding  the  repeal  of  the  Re- 
sumption Act,  a  demand  which  expressed  the  prevailing  Democratic 
VOL.  II.  37 


578  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

sentiment,  and  which  was  the  more  significant  as  coming  from  one 
of  the  most  conservative  of  the  Democratic  leaders  —  one  who  had 
large  financial  interests  in  New  York.  Mr.  Henry  Watterson  was 
made  temporary  chairman,  and  General  John  A.  McClernand  of 
Illinois  permanent  president  of  the  Convention. 

The  platform,  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Resolutions,  was 
believed  to  have  been  prepared  under  the  eye  of  Mr.  Tilden,  and  was 
clothed,  as  general  rumor  had  it,  in  the  rhetoric  of  Mr.  Manton  Mar- 
ble. It  was  the  most  elaborate  paper  of  the  kind  ever  put  forth  by 
a  National  Convention.  It  was  marked  by  the  language  of  an  indict- 
ment, and  contained  the  extended  argument  of  a  stump  speech.  Its 
one  pervading  thought,  emphasized  in  resonant  phrase,  iterating  and 
reiterating,  "that  reform  is  necessary,"  was  an  additional  proof  of  its 
origin.  But  with  all  its  effusiveness  of  expression,  it  lacked  definite- 
ness  in  the  enunciation  of  principles.  Only  two  or  three  propositions 
upon  pending  issues  were  explicitly  set  forth.  It  accepted  the  Con- 
.stitutional  Amendments;  denounced  "the  present  tariff  levied  upon 
.nearly  four  thousand  articles  as  a  masterpiece  of  injustice,  inequality, 
-and  false  pretense ; "  demanded  that  "  all  custom-house  taxation 
should  be  only  for  revenue ; "  and  then  addressed  itself  to  a  some- 
what vituperative  arraignment  of  the  Republican  party.  On  the 
•vital  question  of  the  currency  it  charged  that  party  with  "  enacting 
hindrances  to  the  resumption  of  specie  payments,"  adding :  "  As  such 
a  hindrance  we  denounce  the  resumption  clause  of  the  Act  of  1875, 
and  we  here  demand  its  repeal."  A  controversy  arose  as  to  whether 
simply  the  resumption  clause  should  be  repealed  or  the  entire 
policy  condemned ;  and  a  discussion  upon  that  question,  led  by 
General  Ewing  on  the  one  side  and  by  Mr.  Dorsheimer  on  the  other, 
was  one  of  the  interesting  features  of  the  Convention.  General 
Ewing  had  made  a  minority  report  embodying  his  views,  but  at 
the  close  of  the  discussion  it  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  550  to  219, 
and  the  platform  as  it  had  been  arranged  under  Mr.  Tilden's  eye 
was  adopted. 

The  presentation  of  candidates  followed.  No  one  entertained 
a  doubt  of  the  result,  but  Governor  Hendricks,  Senator  Bayard, 
General  Hancock,  Joel  Parker,  and  Governor  Allen,  were  formally 
named  by  their  respective  States.  Mr.  Tilden  was  effectively  pre- 
sented by  Senator  Kernan.  The  first  ballot  practically  decided  the 
contest.  Mr.  Tilden  received  404J,  Mr.  Hendricks  140J,  General 
Hancock  75,  Governor  Allen  34,  Senator  Bayard  33,  with  37  scatter- 


MR.  TILDEN'S  LETTER  OF  ACCEPTANCE.  579 

ing.  Mr.  Tilden  lacked  but  a  few  votes  of  the  requisite  two-thirds, 
and  before  the  second  ballot  was  concluded  his  nomination  was 
declared  to  be  unanimous.  The  work  was  completed  by  the  choice 
of  Mr.  Hendricks  of  Indiana  for  Vice-President.  The  ticket  thus 
presented  was  the  result  of  political  skill,  as  it  embodied  the  largest 
measure  of  Democratic  strength.  It  united  the  two  States  of  the 
North  which  with  a  solid  vote  from  the  South  would  control  the 
country.  One  candidate  suited  the  hard-money  element ;  the  other 
the  soft-money  element.  One  aimed  to  draw  recruits ;  the  other  to 
hold  the  old-time  Democrats. 

Mr.  Tilden's  letter  of  acceptance  was  directed  chiefly  to  the  state 
of  the  currency  and  to  the  conditions  and  methods  of  resuming  specie 
payments.  He  had  no  sympathy  with  the  soft-money  ideas  which 
dominated  so  large  a  section  of  his  party,  but  he  was  constrained  to 
support  the  demand  of  his  own  platform  for  the  repeal  of  the  Resump- 
tion clause,  and  he  undertook  to  do  it  by  urging  that  a  system  of 
preparation  was  all-important,  and  that  the  promise  of  a  specific  day 
was  of  no  importance,  —  forgetting  that  the  Act  and  the  date  contem- 
plated and  provided  preparation.  Though  the  letter  was  of  unusual 
length  it  was  almost  exclusively  devoted  to  these  financial  questions, 
and  only  briefly  referred  to  civil  service  reform  at  the  conclusion. 
On  that  subject  his  utterances  had  the  same  defect  of  indefiniteness. 
He  described  recognized  evils,  without  indicating  any  practical 
remedy.  Mr.  Hayes  had  been  more  specific.  He  had  positively 
declared  against  the  use  of  official  patronage  in  elections  and  re- 
moved himself  from  all  temptation  by  giving  the  voluntary  pledge 
that  if  elected  he  would  not  be  a  candidate  for  a  second  term.  Mr. 
Tilden  did  not  bind  himself  by  any  personal  pledge,  but  expressed 
the  "  conviction  that  no  reform  of  the  civil  service  in  this  country 
will  be  complete  and  permanent  until  its  Chief  Magistrate  is  Con- 
stitutionally disqualified  for  re-election." 

The  canvass  was  not  marked  by  striking  incidents.  Mr.  Hayes, 
who  had  no  inclination  for  political  management,  left  the  conduct 
of  the  campaign  in  the  hands  of  party  leaders.  It  was  throughout 
practically  directed  by  one  of  the  most  resolute  and  competent  of 
men  —  Zachariah  Chandler  of  Michigan.  Mr.  Tilden  was  not  an 
orator,  and  did  not  follow  the  example  of  Mr.  Seymour  or  Mr. 
Greeley  in  going  before  the  people,  but  skillfully  and  quietly  directed 
all  the  movements  of  the  canvass.  In  spite  of  his  personal  fidelity 
to  hard  money,  the  equivocal  position  of  his  party  was  used  against 


580  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

him  with  great  effect.  The  fact  that  the  Republicans  had  passed 
the  Resumption  measure,  and  that  the  Democrats  had  demanded  the 
repeal  of  its  most  important  feature,  made  a  clear  and  sharp  issue ; 
and  the  pronounced  record  of  Mr.  Hayes  as  the  leader  of  the  fight 
against  the  inflationists  in  Ohio,  emphasized  the  Republican  attitude. 

The  Southern  question,  though  treated  as  secondary,  came  into 
marked  prominence.  It  was  brought  forward  by  the  course  of  events. 
If  the  solid  South  was  to  constitute  the  chief  pillar  of  Democratic 
strength,  it  would  exercise  a  dominant  influence  in  Democratic  coun- 
cils, and  the  North  might  naturally  regard  the  possible  consequences 
of  its  ascendency  with  misgiving  and  alarm.  So  strong  did  this  feel- 
ing grow,  that  Mr.  Tilden  was  compelled,  before  the  close  of  the 
campaign,  to  put  forth  a  letter  pledging  himself,  in  the  event  of 
his  election,  to  enforce  the  Constitutional  Amendments  and  resist 
Southern  claims.  But  every  one  understood  at  the  same  time  that 
the  vote  of  the  recent  slave  States  entered  into  Mr.  Tilden's  calcula- 
tions as  necessary  to  his  election.  The  solid  South,  New  York,  Indi- 
ana, Connecticut,  and  New  Jersey,  and  possibly  Oregon,  was  the 
political  power  embraced  in  his  calculations. 

The  October  States,  Ohio  and  Indiana  (Pennsylvania  having 
ceased  to  vote  in  that  month),  did  not  indicate  a  decisive  result. 
Ohio  went  Republican  by  9,000 ;  Indiana  went  Democratic  by  5,000 
majority.  Benjamin  Harrison  led  the  Republican  forces  in  the  latter 
State,  and  but  for  some  troubles  which  preceded  his  nomination,  and 
with  which  he  was  in  no  way  connected,  would  probably  have  carried 
the  State.  Both  parties  therefore  came  to  the  Presidential  election 
in  November  without  confidence  as  to  the  result.  The  reports 
during  the  night  after  the  polls  had  closed  led  to  the  general  belief 
that  Mr.  Tilden  had  been  chosen.  He  had  carried  New  York,  New 
Jersey,  Connecticut,  and  Indiana,  exactly  according  to  his  calcula- 
tions. Had  he  secured  a  solid  vote  in  the  South?  It  was  widely 
feared  that  he  had ;  but  very  late  in  the  night,  or  rather  very  early 
the  next  morning,  Mr.  Chandler,  Chairman  of  the  Republican 
National  Committee,  received  information  which  convinced  him  that 
the  Republicans  had  triumphed  in  South  Carolina,  Louisiana,  and 
Florida,  and  with  great  confidence  he  sent  over  the  wires  of  the 
Associated  Press,  too  late  for  many  of  the  morning  papers,  a  tele- 
gram which  became  historic :  "  Rutherford  B.  Hayes  has  received 
one  hundred  and  eighty-five  electoral  votes,  and  is  elected." 


RESULT  OF  THE  ELECTION.  581 

The  Democratic  party,  and  especially  its  chief,  Mr.  Tilden,  had 
calculated  so  confidently  upon  a  solid  South  that  the  possible  loss 
of  three  States  was  not  to  be  calmly  tolerated ;  yet  the  States  in 
doubt  were  those  in  which  Republican  victory  was  from  the  first 
possible  if  not  probable.  In  South  Carolina  and  Louisiana,  not  only 
was  there  a  considerable  number  of  white  Republicans,  but  in  each 
State  the  colored  men  (who  were  unanimously  Republican)  out- 
numbered all  the  white  men.  The  disparity  in  South  Carolina  was 
so  great  that  the  white  population  was  but  289,000,  while  the  col- 
ored population  was  415,000.  In  Florida  the  two  races  were  nearly 
equal  in  number,  and  owing  to  a  large  influx  of  white  settlers  from 
the  North  the  Republicans  were  in  a  decided  majority.  Upon  an 
honest  vote  a  Republican  majority  in  each  of  the  three  States  was 
indisputably  assured. 

Both  Republicans  and  Democrats  persisted  in  claiming  a  vic- 
tory in  the  three  States,  and  as  the  leaders  were  positive  in  their  con- 
clusions the  masses  of  each  party  became  greatly  excited.  Partisan 
papers  were  full  of  threats,  and  from  the  South  constant  rumors  indi- 
cated a  danger  of  mob  violence.  The  first  step  towards  checking  the 
excitement  was  the  proposition  that  each  party  should  send  a  certain 
number  of  prominent  men  to  the  disputed  States  to  see  "a  fair  count." 
This  was  accepted  and  representative  men  of  both  parties  were  soon 
present  in  New  Orleans,  in  Columbia,  and  in  Tallahassee,  the  capitals 
of  the  three  disputed  States.  The  Committee  of  Republicans  sent  to 
Louisiana  was  appointed  by  the  President.  Their  investigation  was 
very  thorough,  and  their  report,  made  in  due  form,  was  transmitted 
with  the  accompanying  testimony  by  the  President  to  Congress. 

President  Grant  took  precautions  against  disturbance  by  strength- 
ening the  military  forces  at  the  points  in  the  South  where  violence 
was  most  feared ;  and  on  the  10th  of  November,  three  days  after  the 
Presidential  election,  he  sent  to  General  Sherman,  commanding  the 
Army,  the  following  memorable  dispatch :  "  Instruct  General  Augur 
in  Louisiana  and  General  Ruger  in  Florida  to  be  vigilant  with  the 
force  at  their  command  to  preserve  peace  and  good  order,  and  to  see 
that  the  proper  and  legal  boards  of  canvassers  are  unmolested  in  the 
performance  of  their  duties.  Should  there  be  any  grounds  of  sus- 
picion of  a  fraudulent  count  on  either  side  it  should  be  reported  and 
denounced  at  once.  No  man  worthy  of  the  office  of  President  should 
be  willing  to  hold  it  if  counted  in  or  placed  there  by  fraud.  Either 
party  can  afford  to  be  disappointed  in  the  result.  The  country 


582  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

cannot  afford  to  have  the  result  tainted  by  the  suspicion  of  illegal 
or  false  returns." 

The  result  of  the  contests  in  the  three  States,  as  determined  by 
the  legal  canvassing  boards,  gave  the  electoral  votes  in  each  of  them 
to  Hayes  and  Wheeler ;  and  on  the  6th  day  of  December,  when  the 
electors  met  in  the  several  States,  the  result  of  the  count  from  all  the 
States  of  the  Union  showed  185  electors  for  Hayes  and  Wheeler,  184 
for  Tilden  and  Hendricks.  The  Democrats  had  hoped  to  the  last 
that  at  least  one  of  the  States,  or  at  least  one  of  the  electors  in  the 
three  States,  would  be  returned  for  Tilden  and  Hendricks,  and  when 
they  found  that  every  vote  of  the  three  States  was  counted  for  Hayes 
and  Wheeler  their  anger  knew  no  bounds.  Threats  were  openly 
made  that  Hayes  should  never  be  inaugurated.  One  fiery  editor 
promised  that  a  hundred  thousand  Democrats  would  march  to  Wash- 
ington and  take  possession  of  the  Government  in  the  name  of  the 
President  whom  they  claimed  to  have  been  duly  elected. 

President  Grant,  noticing  the  condition  of  the  public  mind  and 
giving  full  heed  to  the  possibility  of  danger,  quietly  strengthened  the 
military  forces  in  and  about  Washington,  with  the  intention  simply 
of  suppressing  disorder,  but  as  excited  Democrats  declared,  with  the 
design  of  installing  Hayes  by  the  aid  of  the  Army  of  the  United 
States.  At  no  time  in  General  Grant's  career  did  his  good  judgment, 
his  cool  temperament,  and  his  known  courage  prove  more  valuable 
to  his  countrymen.  Every  honest  man  knew  that  the  President's 
intention  was  to  preserve  order  and  to  see  that  the  conflict  in  regard 
to  the  Presidency  was  settled  according  to  law.  To  avert  the  reign  of 
a  mob  he  rightfully  took  care  that  the  requisite  military  force  should 
be  at  the  Capital.  No  greater  proof  of  General  Grant's  power  to 
command  was  given,  even  on  the  battle-field,  than  the  quieting  effect 
of  his  measures  upon  the  refractory  and  dangerous  elements  that 
would  have  been  glad  to  disturb  the  public  peace. 

The  portentous  question  which  engaged  the  thoughts  of  all  patri- 
otic men  was  the  count  of  the  electoral  votes  when  the  certificates 
from  the  several  States  should  be  submitted  to  Congress.  By  a  joint 
rule,  adopted  in  February,  1865,  by  the  two  Houses,  preliminary  to 
counting  the  electoral  votes  cast  at  the  Presidential  election  of  1864, 
it  was  directed  that  "  no  electoral  vote  objected  to  shall  be  counted 
except  by  the  concurrent  votes  of  the  two  Houses"  This  rule  necessarily 
expired  with  the  Congress  which  adopted  it,  but  it  was  observed  as 
a  regulation  (no  one  raising  a  question  against  it)  in  counting  the 


BILL  FOR  THE  ELECTORAL    COMMISSION.  583 

electoral  votes  of  1868  and  1872.  Certain  Democrats  now  put  forth 
the  untenable  claim  that  a  joint  rule  adopted  twelve  years  before  and 
never  renewed  should  be  considered  in  full  force.  On  the  other  hand, 
certain  Republicans  held  that  the  Vice-President  was  clothed  with 
the  power  to  open  and  count  the  electoral  votes  and  declare  the 
result,  the  two  Houses  of  Congress  being  present  merely  as  specta- 
tors. According  to  the  first  construction  it  would  be  necessary  only 
for  the  House  of  Representatives,  which  had  a  Democratic  majority, 
to  reject  even  one  of  the  three  disputed  States  from  the  count,  and 
Mr.  Tilden  would  be  left  with  a  majority  of  the  electors.  According 
to  the  second  construction,  the  acting  Vice-President,  Mr.  Ferry,  who 
was  a  Republican,  could  count  the  three  States  in  favor  of  Mr.  Hayes, 
against  the  protest  of  either  or  both  branches,  and  he  would  be 
President-elect. 

It  was  soon  found  necessary  to  abandon  both  pretensions.  On 
the  14th  of  December  the  House  adopted  a  resolution  (reported  from 
the  Judiciary  Committee  by  Mr.  Knott  of  Kentucky,  and  originally 
introduced  by  Mr.  McCrary  of  Iowa)  which,  recognizing  in  a  preamble 
that  "  there  are  differences  of  opinion  as  to  the  proper  mode  of  count- 
ing the  electoral  votes  for  President  and  Vice-President,"  provided 
for  the  appointment  of  a  "  committee  of  seven  member^,  to  act  in  con- 
junction with  any  similar  committee  to  be  appointed  by  the  Senate, 
to  prepare  and  report  without  delay  such  a  measure,  either  legislative 
or  Constitutional,  as  may  in  their  judgment  be  best  calculated  to 
accomplish  the  desired  end ;  and  that  said  committee  have  leave  to 
report  at  any  time."  The  Senate  on  the  18th  of  December  appointed 
a  similar  committee  empowered  to  confer  and  act  with  the  committee 
of  the  House  of  Representatives.1 

From  the  two  committees  acting  as  one,  Mr.  Edmunds  on  the  18th 
of  January  (1877)  reported  a  bill  "to  provide  for  and  regulate  the 
counting  of  votes  for  President  and  Vice-President,  and  the  decision 
of  questions  arising  thereon,  for  the  term  commencing  March  4, 

1  The  joint  committee  respecting  the  mode  of  counting  the  electoral  votes  consisted 
of  the  following  members  :  — 

SENATORS  :  George  F.  Edmunds  of  Vermont,  F.  T.  Frelinghuysen  of  New  Jersey, 
John  A.  Logan  of  Illinois,  Oliver  P.  Morton  of  Indiana,  Allen  G.  Thurman  of  Ohio, 
Thomas  F.  Bayard  of  Delaware,  and  Matt  W.  Ransom  of  North  Carolina. 

General  Logan  was  detained  in  Illinois,  and  Mr.  Conkling  was  substituted  on  the 
committee. 

REPRESENTATIVES  :  Henry  B.  Payne  of  Ohio,  Eppa  Hunton  of  Virginia,  Abram 
S.  Hewitt  of  New  York,  William  M.  Springer  of  Illinois,  George  W.  McCrary  of  Iowa, 
George  F.  Hoar  of  Massachusetts,  and  George  Willard  of  Michigan. 


584  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

1877."  Under  the  regulations  of  the  proposed  bill  it  was  agreed  that 
"no  electoral  vote  or  votes  from  any  State  from  which  but  one  return 
has  been  received  shall  be  rejected,  except  by  the  affirmative  vote  of 
the  two  Houses,"  in  this  respect  reversing  the  joint  rule  of  1865. 
Where  more  than  one  return  had  been  received  a  reference  to  an 
Electoral  Commission  was  provided  —  the  Commission  to  be  com- 
posed of  five  members  of  the  Senate,  five  members  of  the  House  and 
five  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  When  this 
Electoral  Commission  should  decide  any  question  submitted  to  it, 
touching  the  return  from  any  State,  the  bill  declared  that  the  decision 
should  stand,  unless  rejected  by  the  concurrent  votes  of  the  two 
Houses.  Every  member  of  the  Senate  and  House  committees,  with 
the  exception  of  Senator  Morton  of  Indiana,  joined  in  the  report. 
After  an  elaborate  and  very  able  debate  the  bill  was  passed  in  the 
Senate  on  the  24th  of  January  by  ayes  47,  noes  17.  Two  days  later 
it  passed  the  House  by  a  large  majority,  ayes  191,  noes  86. 

The  mode  prescribed  in  this  act  for  selecting  the  members  of  the 
Electoral  Commission  was  by  vipa  voce  vote  in  the  Senate  and  in  the 
House,  — it  being  tacitly  agreed  that  the  Senate  should  appoint  three 
Republicans  and  two  Democrats,  and  that  the  House  should  appoint 
three  Democrats  and  two  Republicans,  —  each  political  party  in  caucus 
selecting  its  own  man.  In  regard  to  the  Commissioners  to  be  taken 
from  the  Supremo  Bench  it  was  ordered  that  the  "  Justices  assigned 
to  the  First,  Third,  Eighth,  and  Ninth  circuits  shall  select,  in  such 
manner  as  a  majority  of  them  may  deem  fit,  another  Associate  Jus- 
tice of  the  said  Court ;  which  five  persons  shall  be  members  of  such 
Commission."  The  four  Justices  thus  absolutely  appointed  were 
Nathan  Clifford,  Samuel  F.  Miller,  Stephen  J.  Field,  and  William 
Strong.  From  the  hour  when  the  Electoral  Bill  was  reported  to  the 
Senate  the  assumption  was  general  that  the  fifth  Justice  selected  for 
the  Commission  would  be  David  Davis.  It  was  currently  believed 
that  Mr.  Abram  S.  Hewitt  had  given  the  assurance  or  at  least  strong 
intimation  that  Judge  Davis  would  be  selected,  as  one  of  the  argu- 
ments to  induce  Mr.  Tilden  to  support  the  Electoral  Bill. 

Originally  a  Republican,  Judge  Davis  had  for  some  years  affiliated 
with  the  Democratic  party,  and  had  in  the  late  election  preferred  Mr. 
Tilden  to  Mr.  Hayes.  Without  any  imputation  of  improper  motives 
there  can  hardly  be  a  doubt  that  the  Democrats,  in  their  almost 
unanimous  support  of  the  Electoral  Bill,  believed  that  Judge  Davis 
would  be  selected,  and  by  parity  of  reasoning  the  large  Republican 


ELECTORAL  COMMISSION  ORGANIZED.  585 

opposition  to  the  bill  might  be  attributed  to  the  same  cause.  But  an 
unlooked-for  event  disturbed  all  calculations  and  expectations.  On 
the  26th  of  January  the  House  was  to  vote  on  the  Electoral  Bill,  and 
a  large  majority  of  the  members  were  committed  to  its  support.  To 
the  complete  surprise  of  both  parties  it  happened  that  Judge  Davis 
was  elected  senator  from  Illinois  on  the  preceding  afternoon,  January 
25th.  Chosen  by  the  Democratic  members  of  the  Legislature,  reck- 
oned as  a  Democratic  senator  elect,  there  was  an  obvious  impropriety, 
which  Judge  Davis  saw  as  quickly  as  others,  in  his  being  selected ; 
and  the  four  judges  unanimously  agreed  upon  Joseph  P.  Bradley  as 
the  fifth  judicial  member  of  the  Commission.1 

The  Electoral  Commission  was  organized  on  the  thirty-first  day  of 
January,  1877.  Eminent  counsel  were  in  attendance  on  both  sides,2 
and  the  hearing  proceeded  with  regularity. 

The  case  of  Florida  was  the  first  adjudicated  before  the  Com- 
mission, and  the  electors  supporting  Hayes  and  Wheeler  were  de- 
clared to  have  been  regularly  chosen.  Only  eight  of  the  Commission 
certified  the  result  —  Justices  Miller,  Strong,  and  Bradley,  Senators 
Edmunds,  Morton,  and  Frelinghuysen,  Representatives  Garfield  and 
Hoar  —  the  eight  Republicans.  It  was  confirmed  by  the  Senate  by 
a  vote  of  44  to  24.  The  House  voted  against  confirming  it ;  but, 
according  to  the  Electoral  law,  the  decision  of  the  Commission  could 
not  be  set  aside  unless  both  Houses  united  in  an  adverse  vote.  The 
cases  of  the  two  other  States,  Louisiana  and  South  Carolina,  were 
in  like  manner  decided  in  favor  of  the  Republican  electors. 

1  The  Commission  as  organized  was  as  follows:  — 

JUSTICES  of  the  Supreme  Court :  Nathan  Clifford,  Samuel  F.  Miller,  Stephen  J. 
Field,  William  Strong,  Joseph  P.  Bradley. 

SENATORS:  George  F.  Edmunds,  Oliver  P.  Morton,  Frederick  T.  Frelinghuysen, 
Thomas  F.  Bayard,  Allen  G.  Thurman. 

REPRESENTATIVES:  Henry  B.  Payne,  Eppa  Hunton,  Josiah  G.  Abbott,  James  A. 
Garfield,  George  F.  Hoar. 

2  The  following  counsel  attended :  — 

On  the  Democratic  side  :  Judge  Jeremiah  S.  Black,  Charles  O'Connor,  John  A. 
Campbell,  formerly  of  the  Supreme  Court,  Lyman  Trumbull,  Montgomery  Blair, 
Matthew  H.  Carpenter,  Ashbel  Green,  George  Hoadly,  Richard  T.  Merrick,  William  C. 
Whitney,  Alexander  Porter  Morse. 

On  the  Republican  side  :  William  M.  Evarts,  Stanley  Matthews,  E.  W.  Stoughton, 
Samuel  Shellabarger.  In  addition  to  the  regular  counsel  the  objectors  to  any  certificate 
or  vote  were  allowed  to  be  heard  by  two  of  their  number.  Senators  Howe,  Christiancy, 
Sherman,  McDonald,  Sargent,  Mitchell,  C.  W.  Jones,  Conover  and  Cooper,  together 
with  Representatives  Kasson,  William  Lawrence,  David  Dudley  Field,  Tucker,  Hurd, 
McCrary,  Hurlbut,  Dunnell,  Cochrane,  Thompson  and  Woodburn  were  appointed  to 
this  duty. 


586  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

The  complication  in  Oregon  was  next  decided.  As  soon  as  Mr. 
Tilden's  campaign  managers  began  to  fear  that  the  electoral  votes  of 
the  three  Southern  States  might  be  given  to  Hayes  and  Wheeler, 
they  turned  their  attention  to  securing  an  electoral  vote  elsewhere 
for  Tilden  and  Hendricks.  The  plan  devised  was  to  find  in  some 
Northern  State  (with  a  Democratic  Governor)  an  elector  who  might 
be  disqualified  under  some  technical  disability.  Oregon  seemed  to 
furnish  the  desired  conditions.  One  of  the  Republican  electors, 
John  W.  Watts,  was  postmaster  in  a  small  office,  and  was  therefore 
declared  to  be  ineligible ;  and  Governor  Grover  gave  the  certificate 
to  E.  A.  Cronin,  who  had  received  1,049  fewer  votes  than  Watts, 
but  who  had  the  largest  number  of  the  three  Democratic  candi- 
dates for  electors.  On  the  6th  of  December,  the  day  appointed  for 
the  meeting  of  the  Electors,  the  two  Republican  Electors  to  whom 
Governor  Grover  had  given  certificates  (W.  H.  Odell  and  J.  C. 
Cartwright)  refused  to  meet  with  Cronin  or  recognize  him  in  any 
way ;  whereupon  the  officially  certified  list  of  votes  and  certificates 
of  election  were,  by  Governor  Grover's  "order,  delivered  to  Cronin 
and  withheld  from  the  Electors  legally  chosen  lay  the  voters  of  the 
State.  The  two  Electors  who  had  received  certificates  of  their  elec- 
tion then  obtained  a  certified  copy  of  the  returns,  met  and  elected 
Watts  to  fill  the  vacancy,  and  then  proceeded  to  cast  three  votes  for 
Hayes.  Cronin  thereupon  immediately  elected  to  fill  the  vacancies, 
two  men  who  had  not  been  voted  for  at  all  by  the  people,  organized 
a  fraudulent  Electoral  College,  and  went  through  the  farce  of  cast- 
ing his  own  vote  for  Tilden,  while  his  two  confederates  (J.  N.  T. 
Miller  and  John  Parker)  voted  for  Hayes.  The  extraordinary  and 
illegal  action  of  Governor  Grover  had  been  urged  through  telegrams 
by  Mr.  Abram  S.  Hewitt,  Chairman  of  the  Democratic  National 
Committee  and  by  Mr.  Manton  Marble,  a  close  personal  friend  of 
Mr.  Tilden.  The  Electoral  Commission  summarily  condemned  the 
fraudulent  proceeding  and  gave  the  three  Electoral  votes  'of  Oregon 
to  Hayes  and  Wheeler.  The  Democratic  members  of  the  Commis- 
sion united  with  the  Republicans  in  rejecting  the  factitious  votes 
cast  by  the  men  associated  with  Cronin,  but  at  the  same  time  they 
voted  to  deprive  Hayes  of  Watts'  vote  and  to  give  the  vote  of  Cronin 
to  Tilden. 

The  proceedings  in  the  Commission  and  in  Congress  were  not 
closed  until  the  second  day  of  March  (1877).  Meanwhile  the  capital 
and  indeed  the  country,  were  filled  with  sensational  and  distracting 


WORK  OF  THE  COMMISSION  CONFIRMED.  587 

rumors :  First,  that  the  Democratic  majority  in  the  House  would 
"  filibuster  "  arid  destroy  the  count ;  second,  that  they  had  agreed  not 
to  "  filibuster  "  by  reason  of  some  arrangement  made  with  Mr.  Hayes 
in  regard  to  future  policies  in  the  South.  Every  mischievous  report 
was  spread ;  and  for  five  weeks  the  country  was  kept  in  a  state  of 
uneasiness  and  alarm,  not  knowing  what  a  day  might  bring  forth. 
But  in  the  end  the  work  of  the  Commission  was  confirmed ;  and  Mr. 
Hayes  was  declared  to  have  been  elected  by  the  precise  vote  which 
Mr.  Chandler,  on  behalf  of  the  Republican  National  Committee, 
claimed  the  day  after  the  polls  closed  in  November — 185  Republican 
electors,  184  Democratic  electors.  It  was  the  first  instance  in  the 
history  of  the  country  where  a  succession  to  the  Presidency  had  been 
disputed.  Differences  of  opinion  in  regard  to  the  legality  and  regu- 
larity of  the  election  in  single  States  had  arisen  in  more  than  one 
Presidential  election ;  but  it  happened  in  these  cases  that  the  count- 
ing of  the  vote  of  the  disputed  States  either  way  would  not  affect 
the  decision,  and  therefore  no  test  was  made. 


The  result  was  undoubtedly  a  great  disappointment  to  Mr.  Tilden, 
and  even  greater  to  his  immediate  friends  and  supporters.  They  at 
once  raised  the  cry  that  they  had  been  defrauded,  that  Mr.  Hayes 
had  received  title  to  his  office  against  the  law  and  against  the  evidence, 
that  he  was  to  occupy  a  place  which  the  people  had  voted  to  confer 
upon  Mr.  Tilden.  In  every  form  of  insinuation  and  accusation,  by 
almost  every  Democratic  paper  in  the  country,  it  was  affirmed  that 
Mr.  Hayes  was  a  fraudulent  President.  This  cry  was  repeated  until 
the  mass  of  the  party  believed  that  they  had  been  made  the  victims 
of  a  conspiracy,  and  had  been  entrapped  by  an  Electoral  Commis- 
sion. Yet  the  first  authoritative  movement  for  the  committee  that 
reported  the  Electoral  Bill  was  from  a  Southern  Democrat  in  the 
House,  and  the  Electoral  Bill  itself  was  supported  by  an  over- 
whelming number  of  Democrats  in  both  branches  ;  whereas  the  joint 
vote  of  the  Republicans  was,  by  a  large  majority,  against  the  bill. 

The  vote  of  the  Democrats  in  favor  of  the  Electoral  Bill,  as 
compared  with  the  Democrats  who  voted  against  it  in  both  branches, 
was  in  the  proportion  of  more  than  ten  to  one  ;  whereas  but  two-fifths 
of  the  Republicans  in  the  two  Houses  voted  for  the  bill,  and  three- 
fifths  against  it.  Only  a  single  Democrat  in  the  Senate,  Mr.  Eaton 


588  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

of  Connecticut,  cast  a  negative  vote ;  and  lie  acknowledged  in  doing 
it  that  the  State  Senate  of  Connecticut,  controlled  by  the  Democrats, 
had  requested  him  to  support  the  bill.  All  the  leading  Democrats 
of  the  Senate  —  Mr.  Thurman,  Mr.  Bayard,  Mr.  Pinkney  Whyte  — 
made  earnest  speeches  in  favor  of  it.  Mr.  McDonald  of  Indiana 
declared  that  the  popular  sentiment  of  his  State  was  overwhelmingly 
in  favor  of  it,  and  he  reproached  Mr.  Morton  for  opposing  it. 
Other  prominent  Republicans  in  the  Senate  —  Mr.  Sherman,  Mr. 
Cameron  of  Pennsylvania,  Mr.  Hamlin,  Mr.  Elaine  —  earnestly  united 
with  Mr,  Morton  in  his  opposition  to  the  measure. 

The  division  was  the  same  in  the  House.  Mr.  Henry  B.  Payne 
of  Ohio,  Mr.  Abram  S.  Hewitt,  Mr.  Clarkson  N.  Potter,  Mr.  Samuel 
S.  Cox,  and  nearly  all  the  influential  men  on  the  Democratic  side, 
united  in  supporting  the  bill ;  while  General  Garfield,  Mr.  Frye,  Mr. 
Kasson,  Mr.  Hale,  Mr.  Martin  I.  Townsend,  and  the  leading  Repub- 
licans of  the  House,  opposed  it.  The  House  was  stimulated  to 
action  by  a  memorial  presented  by  Mr.  Randall  L.  Gibson  from 
New  Orleans,  demanding  the  passage  of  the  bill ;  while  Governor 
Vance  of  North  Carolina,  afterwards  elected  senator,  telegraphed 
that  the  North-Carolina  Legislature  had  almost  unanimously  passed 
resolutions  in  favor  of  it.  The  Democrats,  therefore,  had  in  a 
remarkable  degree  concentrated  their  influence  and  their  votes  in 
support  of  the  measure.1  It  was  fashioned  precisely  as  they  desired  it. 
They  agreed  to  every  line  and  every  letter.  They  agreed  that  a  ma- 
jority of  the  Commission,  constituted  as  they  ordained  it  should  be, 
might  decide  these  questions,  and  when  the  final  decision  was  made 
they  cried  out  in  anger  because  it  was  not  in  Mr.  Tilden's  favor. 
One  of  the  ablest  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  Joseph  P.  Bradley, 
has  been  made  the  subject  of  unmerited  censure  because  he  decided 
the  points  of  law  according  to  his  own  convictions  (sustained  by 
the  convictions  of  Justices  Miller  and  Strong),  and  not  according 
to  the  convictions  of  Justices  Clifford  and  Field. 

The  Democratic  dissatisfaction  was   instinctive  and  inevitable. 


1  The  following  is  an  exact  statement  of  the  vote  on  the  Electoral  Bill  in  both 
branches:  — 

In  the  Senate  26  Democrats  voted  for  the  Bill  and  1  against  it. 
"    "        "      21  Republicans    "      "      "      "      "  16        "       " 
In  the  House  160  Democrats        "     "      "      "      "  17        "       " 
"    "        "       31  Republicans     "      "      "      "      "  69        "       " 

In  the  two  Houses  jointly,  186  Democrats  voted  for  the  Electoral  Bill  and  18  against 
it,  while  52  Republicans  voted  for  the  Bill  and  75  against  it. 


THE  POTTER  INVESTIGATING    COMMITTEE.  589 

In  the  very  nature  of  things  it  is  impossible  after  an  election  to 
constitute  a  Commission  whose  decisions  will  be  accepted  by  both 
political  organizations  as  impartial.  It  is,  or  it  certainly  should  be, 
practicable  to  establish  by  law,  before  the  election  to  which  it  may 
first  apply,  a  permanent  mode  of  adjudicating  disputed  points  in  the 
return  of  Presidential  votes.  Yet  with  the  serious  admonition  of 
1876,  Congress  has  neglected  the  duty  which  may  well  be  regarded 
as  the  most  important  and  most  imperative  that  can  devolve  upon  it. 
The  government  of  a  Republic  is  left  to  all  the  chances  of  anarchy 
so  long  as  there  is  no  mode  established  by  law  for  determining  the 
election  of  its  Chief  Executive  officer. 

The  disappointment  of  the  Democratic  masses  continued  after 
the  inauguration  of  President  Hayes,  and  it  took  the  form  of  a  de- 
mand for  an  investigation.  It  was  not  expected,  of  course,  that  any 
thing  could  be  done  to  affect  the  decision  of  the  Electoral  Commis- 
sion, but  the  friends  of  Mr.  Tilden  clamored  for  an  exposure  of  Re- 
publican practices  in  the  Presidential  campaign.  The  Democrats  in 
Congress  were  less  eager  for  this  course  than  the  Democrats  outside 
of  Congress.  It  was  understood  that  personal  and  urgent  requests  — 
one  coming  from  Mr.  Tilden  himself — were  necessary  to  induce  Mr. 
Clarkson  N.  Potter  to  take  the  lead  by  offering  on  the  13th  of  May, 
1878,  a  resolution  for  the  appointment  of  a  select  committee  of 
eleven  "  to  inquire  into  the  alleged  false  and  fraudulent  canvass  and 
return  of  votes  by  State,  county,  parish,  and  precinct  officers  in  the 
States  of  Louisiana  and  Florida,  and  into  all  the  facts  which  in  the 
judgment  of  said  committee  are  connected  with  or  are  pertinent 
thereto."  The  resolution  was  adopted,  and  a  committee  was  ap- 
pointed, with  power  to  sit  during  the  recess  of  Congress.1 

Congress  adjourned  on  the  20th  of  June,  and  after  a  short  vaca- 
tion Mr.  Potter's  committee  entered  upon  its  extensive  inquiries. 
Perhaps  with  the  view  of  stimulating  the  Democratic  members  of 
the  committee  to  zeal  in  the  performance  of  their  duty,  Mr.  Man- 
ton  Marble  early  in  August  published  a  carefully  prepared  letter  on 
the  electoral  counting  of  1876.  Mr.  Marble  was  unsparing  in  his 
denunciation  of  the  Republicans  for  having,  as  he  alleged,  obtained 
the  election  of  Hayes  and  Wheeler  by  corruption  in  the  Southern 

1  The  following  were  the  members  composing  the  committee:  — 
Clarkson  N.  Potter  of  New  York,  William  R.  Morrison  of  Illinois,  Eppa  Hunton  of 
Virginia,  William  8.  Stenger  of  Pennsylvania,  John  A.  McMahon  of  Ohio,  J.  C.  S.  Black- 
burn of  Kentucky,  William  M.  Springer  of  Illinois,  Benjamin  F.  Butler  of  Massachusetts, 
Jacob  D.  Cox  of  Ohio,  Thomas  B.  Reed  of  Maine,  Frank  Hiscock  of  New  York. 


590  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

States.  He  dealt  with  unction  upon  the  fact  that  the  absolute  trust 
of  Mr.  Tilden  and  his  adherents  in  the  Presidential  contest  had  been  in 
moral  forces.  As  the  accusations  put  forth  were  attributed  to  Mr. 
Tilden,  and  only  the  remarkable  rhetoric  of  the  letter  to  Mr.  Marble, 
the  public  interest  was  fully  aroused,  and  the  threatened  exposures 
impatiently  awaited. 

The  majority  of  the  committee  reported,  though  perhaps  with 
greater  elaboration,  substantially  the  same  facts  and  assumptions  that 
had  been  brought  against  the  Republicans  in  the  Southern  States 
directly  after  the  election,  nearly  two  years  before.  If  any  thing  new 
was  produced,  it  was  in  detail  rather  than  in  substance,  and  undoubt- 
edly showed  some  of  the  loose  practices  to  which  the  character  of 
Southern  elections  has  given  rise.  Between  the  violence  of  the  rebel 
organizers,  and  the  shifts  and  evasions  to  which  their  opponents,  both 
white  and  colored,  have  been  subjected,  the  elections  in  many  of  those 
States  have  undoubtedly  been  irregular ;  but  the  Committee  did  not 
establish  any  fraudulent  voting  on  the  part  of  Republicans.  Freely 
analyzed,  indeed,  the  accusations  against  the  colored  voters  were 
in  another  sense  still  graver  accusations  against  the  white  voters. 
Duplicity  is  a  weapon  often  employed  against  tyranny  by  its  victims, 
and  there  is  always  danger  that  a  popular  election  where  law  is 
unfairly  administered  and  violence  constantly  impending,  will  bring 
into  play  on  both  sides  the  worst  elements  of  society. 

But  all  interest  in  the  investigation  as  it  was  originally  designed, 
was  suddenly  diverted  by  incidents  which  were  wholly  unlocked  for 
when  Mr.  Potter  moved  his  resolution  and  when  Mr.  Marble  wrote 
his  letter  —  giving  an  unexpected  conclusion  to  the  grand  inquest  so 
impressively  heralded. 

It  happened  that  during  an  inquiry  into  the  Oregon  case  by 
a  Senate  Committee,  some  thirty  thousand  political  telegrams 
(mainly  in  cipher)  had  been  brought  into  the  custody  of  the  com- 
mittee by  subpoenas  to  the  Western  Union  Telegraph  'Company. 
The  great  mass  of  these  telegrams  were  returned  to  the  Company 
without  translation.  About  seven  hundred,  however,  had  been  re- 
tained by  an  employ^  of  the  committee.  The  re-opening  of  the 
Presidential  controversy  by  the  Democrats,  and  especially  the  offen- 
sive letter  of  Mr.  Marble,  led  to  a  renewed  effort  to  decipher  the 
reserved  telegrams.  The  translation  was  accomplished  by  an  able 
and  ingenious  gentleman  on  the  editorial  staff  of  the  New- York 
Tribune  (Mr.  William  M.  Grosvenor),  and  the  result  disclosed  aston- 


ATTEMPTED  BRIBERY  OF  ELECTORS.         591 

ishing  attempts  at  bribery  on  the  part  of  Democrat!®  agents  in  South 
Carolina,  Florida,  and  Oregon.  What  may  have  been  done  of  the 
same  character  in  Louisiana  can  only  be  inferred,  for  no  dispatches 
from  that  State  were  found. 

The  gentlemen  who  went  to  Florida  in  Mr.  Tilden's  interests 
were  Mr.  Manton  Marble,  Mr.  C.  W.  Woolley,  and  Mr.  John  F. 
Coyle.  Mr.  Marble's  sobriquet  in  the  cipher  dispatches  was  Moses, 
Mr.  Woolley  took  the  suggestive  pseudonym  of  Fox,  while  Mr.  Coyle 
was  known  as  Max.  Their  joint  mission  was  to  secure  the  Electoral 
vote  of  the  State,  by  purchase  if  need  be,  not  quite  as  openly,  but 
as  directly  as  if  they  were  negotiating  for  a  cargo  of  cotton  or 
offering  money  for  an  orange-grove.  Mr.  Marble  was  alarmed 
soon  after  his  arrival  by  finding  that  the  Democratic  electors  had 
"only  about  one  hundred  majority  on  certified  copies,  while  the 
Republicans  claimed  the  same  on  returns."  Growing  anxious, 
he  telegraphed  on  November  22  to  Mr.  William  T.  Pelton  (a 
nephew  of  Mr.  Tilden) :  "  Woolley  asked  me  to  say  let  forces 
be  got  together  immediately  for  contingencies  either  here  or  in 
Louisiana."  A  few  days  later  Mr.  Marble  telegraphed:  "Have 
just  received  a  proposition  to  hand  over  at  any  time  required, 
Tilden  decision  of  Board  and  certificate  of  Governor,  for  $200,000." 
Mr.  Pelton  thought  the  "proposition  too  high,"  and  thereupon  Mr. 
Marble  and  Mr.  Woolley  each  found  that  an  Elector  could  be 
secured  for  $50,000,  and  so  telegraphed  Mr.  Pelton.  Mr.  Pelton,  with 
commendable  economy,  warned  them  that  he  did  not  wish  to  pay 
twice  for  the  same  article,  and  with  true  commercial  caution  advised 
the  Florida  agents  that  "  they  could  not  draw  until  the  vote  of  the 
Elector  was  received."  According  to  Mr.  Woolley  the  power  was 
received  too  late,  and  on  the  5th  of  December  Mr.  Marble  closed  the 
interesting  correspondence  with  these  words  to  Mr.  Pelton  :  "  Propo- 
sition failed.  Finished  responsibility  as  Moses.  Last  night  Woolley 
found  me  and  said  he  had  nothing,  which  I  knew  already.  Tell 
Tilden  to  saddle  Blackstone." 

Mr.  Smith  M.  Weed  went  on  a  similar  errand  to  South  Carolina. 
He  did  not  attempt  to  hide  behind  any  disguised  name,  and  simply 
telegraphed  over  his  own  initial.  On  the  16th  of  November  he  in- 
formed Mr.  Henry  Havermeyer,  who  seemed  to  be  co-operating  with 
Mr.  Pelton  in  New  York,  that  "the  Board  demand  $75,000  for  giving 
us  two  or  three  electors,"  and  that  "  something  beyond  will  be  needful 
for  the  interceder,  perhaps  $10,000."  At  a  later  hour  of  the  same  day 


592  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

he  thought  he  had  made  a  better  bargain,  and  telegraphed  Mr.  Haver- 
meyer  that  "  it  looks  now  as  though  the  thing  would  work  at  875,000 
for  all  seven  votes."  The  next  day  Mr.  Weed  began  to  fear  the  in- 
terposition of  the  court,  and  advised  Mr.  Havermeyer  to  "press 
otherwheres;  for  no  certainty  here,  simply  a  hope."  Twenty-four 
hours  later  Mr.  Weed's  confidence  revived,  and  on  the  18th  he  tele- 
graphed,—  "Majority  of  board  have  been  secured.  Cost  is  180,000, 
—  one  parcel  to  be  sent  of  $65,000;  one  of  $10,000;  one  of  $5,000; 
all  to  be  in  $500  or  $1,000  bills,  notes  to  be  accepted  as  parties  accept 
and  given  up  upon  votes  of  South  Carolina  being  given  to  Tilden's 
friends.  .  Do  this  at  once  and  have  cash  ready  to  reach  Baltimore 
Sunday  night."  Mr.  Weed  then  started  to  Baltimore  with  the  inten- 
tion of  meeting  a  messenger  from  New  York  with  the  money.  Mr. 
Pelton  was  there  but  had  not  brought  the  money,  and  both  went  to 
New  York  to  secure  it. 

Meanwhile  the  Canvassing  Board  of  South  Carolina  reported  the 
returns  to  the  court,  showing  on  their  face  the  election  of  the  Hayes 
Electors,  and  of  a  Democratic  Legislature  which  would  count  the  vote 
for  Governor.  The  Board  also  reported  that  the  votes  of  Lawrence 
and  Edgefield  Counties  ought  to  be  thrown  out,  which  would  make 
a  Republican  Legislature.  On  the  22d  the  court  issued  an  order  to 
the  Board  to  certify  the  members  of  the  Legislature  according  to  the 
face  of  the  returns,  but  to  revise  and  correct  the  Electoral  vote  ac- 
cording to  the  precinct  returns.  Without  receiving  this  order  the 
Canvassing  Board,  whose  powers  expired  by  statutory  limitation  on 
that  day,  perceiving  the  purpose  of  the  Court  to  prevent  any  count 
of  the  Electoral  vote,  declared  and  certified  the  election  of  the  Re- 
publican electors,  rejected  the  votes  of  Lawrence  and  Edgefield 
Counties,  certified  the  election  of  a  Republican  Legislature,  and  then 
adjourned  without  day. 

This  result  put  an  end  to  the  plans  of  Mr.  Weed  and  Mr.  Pelton 
for  bribing  the  Canvassing  Board.  But  their  resources  were  not  yet 
exhausted.  On  the  4th  of  December  Mr.  Pelton  offered  to  furnish 
$20,000  if  it  "  would  secure  several  electors."  This  plan  also  failing, 
he  telegraphed,  advising  "  that  the  Court  under  the  pending  quo 
warranto  proceedings  should  arrest  the  Electors  for  contempt,  and 
imprison  them  separately  during  Wednesday,"  the  day  for  casting 
their  votes  for  President  and  Vice-President ;  "  for,"  as  he  plaintively 
added,  "  all  depends  on  your  State."  Imprisoning  "  separately  "  was 
essential,  for  if  they  were  imprisoned  together  they  could  have  cast 
the  Electoral  vote.* 


END  OF  THE  POTTER  INVESTIGATION.  593 

In  Oregon  the  attempt  to  bribe  was  quite  as  bold  as  in  the  two 
Southern  States.  Mr.  George  L.  Miller  of  Omaha,  member  of  the 
National  Democratic  Committee  for  Nebraska,  had  been  requested 
by  Mr.  Pelton  to  go  to  Oregon,  but  had  sent  in  his  stead  one  J.  N.  H. 
Patrick,  who  upon  his  arrival  at  Portland  began  an  active  telegraphic 
correspondence  with  Mr.  Pelton.  On  the  28th  of  November  he  tele- 
graphed Mr.  Pelton  that  Governor  Grover  would  issue  a  certificate 
of  election  to  one  Democratic  Elector  (Cronin),  and  added,  "Must 
purchase  Kepublican  Elector  to  recognize  and  act  with  the  Democrat, 
and  secure  vote  to  prevent  trouble.  Deposit  $10,000  to  my  credit." 
This  telegram  was  endorsed  by  Senator  Kelly,  to  whom  Mr.  Abram 
S.  Hewitt  had  on  the  17th  of  November  telegraphed  at  San  Francisco 
when  on  his  way  to  Washington,  that  circumstances  required  his  im- 
mediate return  to  Oregon  to  consult  Governor  Grover.  Mr.  Pelton 
replied  to  Mr.  Patrick,  "  If  you  will  make  obligation  contingent  on 
result  in  March,  it  will  be  done,  and  incremable  slightly  if  necessary," 
to  which  Mr.  Patrick  responded  that  the  fee  could  not  be  made  con- 
tingent ;  whereupon  the  sum  of  88,000  was  deposited  to  his  credit 
on  the  1st  of  December,  in  New  York,  but  intelligence  of  it  reached 
Oregon  too  late  to  carry  out  any  attempt  to  corrupt  a  Republican 
Elector. 

As  nothing  had  been  known  of  these  extraordinary  facts  when 
Mr.  Potter  moved  for  the  appointment  of  his  investigating  committee, 
the  House  of  Representatives,  on  the  20th  of  January,  1879,  directed 
that  committee  to  investigate  the  cipher  telegrams.  Before  this  com- 
mittee the  genuineness  of  the  telegrams  and  the  correctness  of  the 
translation  by  the  Tribune  were  abundantly  established.  Some  of 
the  principal  persons  connected  with  them  appeared  before  the  com- 
mittee to  explain  and  to  excuse.  Senator  Kelly  had  previously 
stated  that  he  endorsed  Mr.  Patrick's  dispatch  without  knowing 
its  contents,  a  statement  probable  in  itself  and  sustained  by  Mr. 
Kelly's  good  reputation.  Mr.  Marble  swore  that  he  transmitted  to 
headquarters  information  of  the  opportunities  for  corruption  merely 
"as  danger  signals."  Mr.  Weed  admitted  and  tried  to  justify  his 
efforts  to  bribe  the  South  Carolina  Canvassing  Board.  Mr.  Pelton 
admitted  all  his  attempts  and  took  upon  himself  the  full  responsi- 
bility, saying  that  if  money  became  actually  necessary,  he  intended 
to  call  for  it  upon  Mr.  Edward  Cooper  and  the  members  of  the 
National  Democratic  Committee.  Mr.  Cooper  swore  that  he  first 
knew  that  Mr.  Pelton  was  conducting  such  negotiations  when  he 
VOL.  H.  88 


594  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

went  to  Baltimore  ;  and  that  when  on  the  next  day  he  received  from 
Mr.  Pelton  a  cipher  telegram  requesting  that  the  $80,000  should  be 
sent  to  him  at  Baltimore,  he  informed  Mr.  Tilden  what  Pelton  was 
doing,  whereupon  he  was  recalled  and  "  the  thing  was  stopped." 
Under  cross-examination  by  Mr.  Reed  of  Maine,  Mr.  Tilden  swore 
that  he  knew  nothing  of  any  of  the  telegrams ;  that  the  first  he  knew 
of  the  Florida  transactions  was  when  they  were  mentioned  to  him 
by  Mr.  Marble  after  his  return  from  Florida ;  that  he  was  informed 
by  Mr.  Cooper  of  the  South  Carolina  negotiations  and  stopped  them  ; 
that  he  scorned  to  defend  his  title  by  such  means  as  were  employed 
to  acquire  a  felonious  possession.  Neither  Mr.  Patrick  nor  Mr. 
Woolley  appeared  before  the  committee. 

Two  general  conclusions  may  safely  be  drawn  from  the  voluminous 
evidence  :  first,  that  the  Democratic  agents  in  the  contested  States  of 
Florida,  .South  Carolina,  and  Oregon  earnestly  and  persistently  en- 
deavored to  change  the  result  from  Hayes  to  Tilden  by  the  use  of 
large  sums  of  money  as  bribes  to  official  persons  to  violate  their 
duty ;  second,  that  the  negotiations  for  that  purpose  do  not  show 
that  any  member  of  any  Canvassing  Board  or  any  Presidential 
Elector  ever  contemplated  betraying  his  trust  for  such  induce- 
ment. The  interest  throughout  the  investigation  centred  upon 
Mr.  Tilden,  and  concerning  him  and  his  course  there  followed 
general  discussion — angry  accusation  and  warm  defense.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  testimony  to  contradict  the  oath  taken  by  Mr.  Tilden 
and  there  has  been  no  desire  to  fasten  a  guilty  responsibility  upon 
him.  But  the  simple  fact  remains  that  a  Presidential  canvass  which 
began  with  a  ponderous  manifesto  in  favor  of  "  reform  "  in  every 
department  of  the  Government,  and  which  accused  those  who  had 
been  entrusted  with  power  for  sixteen  years  of  every  form  of  dis- 
honesty and  corruption,  ended  with  a  persistent  and  shameless  effort 
to  bribe  the  electors  of  three  States ! 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 

INAUGURATION  OF  PRESIDENT  HAYES.— His  SOUTHERN  POLICY.  —  APPOINTMENT  OF  HIS 
CABINET.  —ORGANIZATION  OF  SENATE  AND  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES.  —RE-ELEC- 
TION OF  SPEAKER  RANDALL.  —  SILVER  DISCUSSION.  —  COINAGE  OF  SILVER  DOLLAR.  — 
REPORT  OF  SILVER  COMMISSION.  —  DISCUSSION  ON  SILVER  QUESTION.  —  PRODUCT  OF 
SILVER  AND  GOLD.  —  THIRTY-TWO  YEARS  OF  EACH.  —  NAVIGATION  INTERESTS.  — 
Loss  OF  GROUND  BY  THE  UNITED  STATES.  —  REASON  THEREFOR.  —  How  CAN  IT  BBS 

REGAINED  ? 

PRESIDENT  HAYES  was  inaugurated  on  the  5th  day  of  March 
(1877) — the  4th  falling  on  Sunday.  As  matter  of  precau- 
tion the  oath  of  office  was  administered  to  him  by  Chief  Justice 
Waite  on  Sunday  —  Mr.  Hayes  deeming  it  wise  and  prudent  that  he 
should  be  ready  as  President  of  the  United  States  to  do  his  official 
duty  if  any  Executive  act  should  that  day  be  required  for  the  pub- 
lic safety.  Although  his  title  had  been  in  doubt  until  within 
forty-eight  hours  of  his  accession,  he  had  carefully  prepared  his  Inau- 
gural address.  It  was  made  evident  by  his  words  that  he  would 
adopt  a  new  policy  on  the  Southern  question  and  upon  the  question 
of  Civil  Service  Reform.  It  was  plainly  his  determination  to  with- 
draw from  the  South  all  National  protection  to  the  colored  people, 
and  to  put  the  white  population  of  the  reconstructed  States  upon 
their  good  faith  and  their  honor,  as  to  their  course  touching  the 
political  rights  of  all  citizens. 

The  Inaugural  address  did  not  give  satisfaction  to  the  radical 
Republicans,  but  was  received  with  every  mark  of  approbation  by  the 
more  conservative  elements  of  the  party.  Many  Democrats  would 
have  supported  Mr.  Hayes  cordially  but  for  the  mode  of  his  election. 
It  was  impossible  for  them  to  recover  from  the  chagrin  and  disap- 
pointment of  Mr.  Tilden's  defeat.  The  new  President,  therefore, 
began  his  administration  with  a  bitter  personal  opposition  from  the 
Democracy,  and  with  a  distrust  of  his  own  policy  on  the  part  of  a 
large  number  of  those  who  had  signally  aided  in  his  election. 

The  one  special  source  of  dissatisfaction  was  the  intention  of  the 
President  to  disregard  the  State  elections  in  the  three  States  upon 

595 


596  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

whose  votes  his  own  title  depended.  The  concentration  of  interest  was 
upon  the  State  of  Louisiana,  where  Governor  Packard  was  officially 
declared  to  have  received  a  larger  popular  majority  than  President 
Hayes.  By  negotiation  of  certain  Commissioners  who  went  to  Louisi- 
ana under  appointment  of  the  President,  the  Democratic  candidate  for 
Governor,  Francis  T.  Nicholls,  was  installed  in  office  and  Governor 
Packard  was  left  helpless.1  No  act  of  President  Hayes  did  so  much 
to  create  discontent  within  the  ranks  of  the  Republican  party.  No 
act  of  his  did  so  much  to  give  color  to  the  thousand  rumors  that 
filled  the  political  atmosphere,  touching  a  bargain  between  the 
President's  friends  and  some  Southern  leaders,  pending  the  decis- 
ion of  the  Electoral  Commission.  The  election  of  the  President  and 
the  election  of  Mr.  Packard  rested  substantially  upon  the  same  foun- 
dation, and  many  Republicans  felt  that  the  President's  refusal  to 
recognize  Mr.  Packard  as  Governor  of  Louisiana  furnished  ground 
to  his  enemies  for  disputing  his  own  election.  Having  been  placed  in 
the  Presidency  by  a  title  as  strong  as  could  be  confirmed  under  the 
Constitution  and  laws  of  the  country,  it  was,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
majority  of  the  Republican  party,  an  unwise  and  unwarranted  act  on 
the  part  of  the  President  to  purchase  peace  in  the  South  by  surren- 
dering Louisiana  to  the  Democratic  party. 

The  Cabinet  selected  by  President  Hayes  was  regarded  as  one 
of  great  ability.  Mr.  Evarts,  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Sherman,  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury,  Mr.  Schurz,  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  were 
well  known. 

—  The  Secretary  of  War,  George  W.  McCrary  of  Iowa,  had  steadily 
grown  in  public  esteem  by  his  service  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, and  possessed  every  quality  desirable  for  the  administration  of 
a  great  public  trust. 

—  Mr.  Richard  W.  Thompson  of  Indiana,  appointed  Secretary  of  the 
Navy,  was  in  his  sixty-eighth  year,  and  had  been  a  representative  in 
Congress  thirty-five  years  before.     He  was  known  throughout  the 
West  as  an  ardent  Whig  and  an  equally  ardent  Republican. 

—  Charles  Devens  of  Massachusetts  was  appointed  Attorney-General. 
His  standing  as  a  lawyer  can  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  he  left 
the  Supreme  Bench  of  his  State  to  accept  the  position.     To  eminence 

1  The  Louisiana  Commission  was  composed  as  follows: 

General  Joseph  R.  Hawley  of  Connecticut,  Judge  Charles  B.  Lawrence  of  Ohio, 
General  John  M.  Harlan  of  Kentucky,  Ex-Governor  John  C.  Brown  of  Tennessee,  Hon. 
Wayne  McVeagh  of  Pennsylvania. 


CABINET  OF  PRESIDENT  HAYES.  597 

in  his  profession  he  added  an  honorable  record  as  a  soldier,  having 
served  with  distinction  in  the  civil  war  and  attained  the  rank  of 
Brigadier-General.  As  a  private  gentleman  he  was  justly  and  widely 
esteemed. 

—  For  Postmaster-General  the  President  selected  David  M.  Key  of 
Tennessee,  who  during  the  previous  session  had  served  in  the  Sen- 
ate, by  appointment  of  the  Governor  of  his  State,  to  fill  the  va- 
cancy caused  by  the  death  of  Ex-President  Johnson.  The  selection 
of  Mr.  Key  was  made  to  emphasize  the  change  of  Southern  policy 
which  President  Hayes  had  foreshadowed  in  his  Inaugural  address. 
Mr.  Key  was  a  Democrat,  and  personally  popular.  A  Southern 
Democrat  in  a  Republican  Cabinet  presented  a  novel  political  com- 
bination, and  it  is  evidence  of  the  tact  and  good  sense  of  Mr.  Key 
that  he  administered  his  Department  in  such  manner  as  to  secure, 
not  merely  the  respect  of  the  Republican  party,  but  the  sincere 
friendship  of  many  of  its  leading  members.  He  was  wise  enough 
and  fortunate  enough  to  induce  Hon.  James  N.  Tyner,  whom  he  suc- 
ceeded as  Postmaster-General,  to  remain  in  the  Department  as  First 
Assistant,  in  order  that  Republican  senators  and  representatives 
might  freely  communicate  upon  party  questions,  which  Mr.  Key 
delicately  refrained  from  even  hearing.  The  suggestion  was  made, 
however,  by  men  of  sound  judgment,  that  in  projecting  a  new  policy 
towards  the  South,  which  was  intended  to  be  characterized  by  greater 
leniency  in  certain  directions,  it  would  have  been  wiser  in  a  party 
point  of  view,  and  more  enduring  in  its  intrinsic  effect,  to  make  the 
overture  through  a  Republican  statesman  of  rank  and  celebrity. 

Among  the  new  senators  of  the  Forty-fifth  Congress  were  some 
who  were  transferred  from  the  House  and  were  already  well  known 
to  the  country.  James  B.  Beck  of  Kentucky,  George  F.  Hoar  of 
Massachusetts,  Benjamin  H.  Hill  of  Georgia,  had  each  made  a  bril- 
liant record  by  his  service  in  the  House.  Mr.  Blaine  of  Maine  now 
entered  for  a  full  term,  but  had  come  to  the  Senate  several  months 
before  as  the  successor  of  Honorable  Lot  M.  Morrill,  when  that  gen- 
tleman was  called  by  President  Grant  to  administer  the  Treasury 
Department.  —  Among  those  who  had  not  served  in  Congress  were 
several  distinguished  men.  David  Davis  of  Illinois,  who  had  been 
fifteen  years  on  the  Bench  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
now  entered  the  Senate  as  the  successor  of  General  Logan.  With 
the  exception  of  John  Rutledge,  who  served  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives after  he  had  been  on  the  Supreme  Bench,  Judge  Davis  is 


598  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

the  only  man  who  entered  Congress  after  service  on  the  Bench. 
John  Jay  was  Minister  to  Great  Britain  and  Governor  of  New  York 
after  he  resigned  the  Chief-Justiceship;  and  Oliver  Ellsworth  was 
Minister  to  France  after  his  retirement  from  the  Bench.  A  large 
proportion  of  the  justices  had  been  in  Congress  before  they  entered 
upon  their  judicial  service ;  but  the  transfer  of  Judge  Davis  to  the 
Senate  was  a  reversal  of  the  natural  order. 

Samuel  J.  Kirkwood,  already  well  known  by  his  service  in  the 
Senate,  now  returned  from  Iowa.  —  Preston  B.  Plumb  of  Kansas, 
who  had  been  printer,  editor,  soldier  in  the  civil  war  with  the  rank 
of  Lieutenant-Colonel,  member  of  the  Bar,  reporter  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  his  State,  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  Kan- 
sas, now  succeeded  James  M.  Harvey.  Mr.  Plumb  was  actively 
and  largely  engaged  in  business  affairs,  and  had  perhaps  as  accurate 
knowledge  of  the  resources  of  the  West  as  any  man  in  the  country. 
— A.  H.  Garland  entered  from  Arkansas,  being  promoted  from  the 
Governorship  of  his  State.  He  was  popular  among  his  own  people,  and 
had  been  a  member  of  the  Secession  Convention  and  of  both  branches 
of  the  Confederate  Congress.  His  reputation  as  a  lawyer  had  preceded 
his  entrance  into  the  Senate,  where  he  was  at  once  accorded  high  rank 
among  his  political  friends.  —  John  R.  McPherson,  a  business  man  of 
good  repute  in  New  Jersey,  succeeded  Mr.  Frelinghuysen.  —  Edward 
H.  Rollins  of  New  Hampshire,  who  had  creditably  served  six  years 
in  the  House,  now  came  to  the  Senate  as  the  successor  of  Aaron  H. 
Cragin.  —  Alvin  Saunders,  who  was  appointed  Governor  of  the  Ter- 
ritory of  Nebraska  by  Mr.  Lincoln  in  1861,  and  held  the  position 
until  the  State  was  admitted  to  the  Union  in  1867,  now  came  as  one 
of  her  senators.  —  Richard  Coke  who  had  been  Governor  of  Texas, 
and  Lafayette  Grover  who  had  been  Governor  of  Oregon,  now 
entered  the  Senate.  —  Isham  G.  Harris,  who  had  been  in  Congress 
twenty-five  years  before  and  had  played  a  somewhat  conspicuous  part 
in  the  rebellion  as  Governor  of  Tennessee,  now  succeeded  Henry 
Cooper  as  senator  from  that  State. 

—  William  Pinkney  Whyte,  who  entered  the  Senate  the  previous 
Congress  for  a  full  term,  had  already  served  in  that  body  for  a 
brief  period  in  1868-69,  succeeding  Reverdy  Johnson  when  he  re- 
signed to  accept  the  mission  to  England.  In  the  interval  between 
the  close  of  his  first  service  and  his  second  election  he  had  served 
as  Governor  of  Maryland.  He  is  a  grandson  of  the  eminent  William 
Pinkney,  who  was  a  member  of  the  Senate  at  the  time  of  his  death, 


SENATORS  OF  FORTY-FIFTH  CONGRESS.  599 

and  who  as  an  orator  was  considered  by  Mr.  Benton,  Mr.  Clay,  and 
the  younger  men  of  that  period,  as  the  most  eloquent  in  the  country, 
Mr.  Pinkney  Whyte  held  a  distinguished  position  at  the  bar  of 
Maryland,  was  recognized  as  a  senator  of  great  ability,  and  as  a 
private  gentleman  was  highly  esteemed  without  reference  to  party 
lines. 

—  Stanley  Matthews  took  the  seat  made  vacant  by  the  transfer  of 
Mr.   Sherman  to  the  Treasury  Department.     His  reputation  as  a 
lawyer  was  well  established.     He  had  been  United-States  District 
Attorney  for  three  years  preceding  the  war.    He  commanded  an  Ohio 
regiment  for  two  years  in  the  field  and  resigned  to  accept  a  position 
on  the  bench  of  the  Superior  Court.     His  legislative  experience  had 
been  limited  to  a  single  term  in  the -Ohio  Senate,  and  as  the  Demo- 
crats had  carried  Ohio  in  the  autumn  of  1877  before  he  could  take 
his  seat,  he  saw  before  him  a  short  service  in  Congress.     Within  the 
limit  of  two  years,  however,  he  made  a  profound  impression  upon  his 
associates  in  the  Senate.    He  proved  to  be  an  admirable  debater,  and 
seemed  intuitively  to  catch  the  style  of  Parliamentary  discussion  as 
distinguished  from  an  argument  in  court.     He  left  the  Senate  with 
an  enlarged  reputation,  and  with  a  valuable  addition  to  his  list  of 
personal  friends. 

—  Simon  Cameron  from  Pennsylvania  resigned  his  seat  in  the  spring 
of  1877.     He  had  been  four  times  elected  to  the  body,  and  had  twice 
resigned,  leaving  his  total  service  some  eighteen  years.     He  was  in 
his  seventy-ninth  year  when  he  retired,  but  in  exceptional  vigor  of 
body  and  mind.     He  had  the  graces  of  age  without  its  infirmities, 
and  shared  the  good  will  of  his  fellow  senators  on  both  sides  of  the 
chamber  in  an  exceptional  degree.     He  was  succeeded  by  his  son, 
James  Donald  Cameron,  who  up  to  that  period  had  never  been  a 
member  of  any  legislative  body  and  who  was  in  his  forty-fourth  year 
when  he  took  his  seat  in  the  Senate.     He  was  educated  at  Princeton 
College,  became  a  banker,  had  been  largely  engaged  in  railroad  affairs, 
and  had  indeed  devoted  his  life  to  business.     During  the  last  year  of 
President  Grant's  Administration  he  was  a  member  of  the  Cabinet 
as  Secretary  of  War,  in  which  position  he  showed  the  same  executive 
power  that  had  characterized  the  prompt  and  orderly  dispatch  of  his 
private  business. 

—  A  fortnight  after  the  meeting  of  Congress  the  Senate  sustained  a 
deep  loss  in  the  death  of  Oliver  P.  Morton.     He  died  at  his  home  in 
Indiana  on  the  1st  day  of  November  (1877).     He  had  for  several 


600  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

years  been  in  ill  health,  but  struggled  with  great  nerve  against  the 
advances  of  disease.  Few  men  could  have  resisted  so  long  and  so 
bravely.  An  iron  will  sustained  him  and  enabled  him  through  years 
of  suffering  to  assume  a  leading  part  in  the  legislation  of  the  country 
and  in  directing  the  policy  of  the  Republican  party. 

Governor  Morton  was  succeeded  by  Daniel  W.  Voorhees,  already 
widely  known  by  his  service  of  ten  years  in  the  House.  Mr.  Voorhees 
was  a  Democrat  of  the  most  pronounced  partisan  type,  but  always 
secured  the  personal  good  will  of  his  political  opponents  in  Congress. 
—  M.  C.  Butler  of  South  Carolina  entered  the  Senate  on  the  2d  of 
December,  187T.  He  had  been  engaged  in  all  the  partisan  contests 
by  which  the  Republican  party  was  overthrown  in  South  Carolina, 
and  encountered  much  prejudice  when  he  first  took  his  seat  ?  but  his 
bearing  in  the  Senate  rapidly  disarmed  personal  hostility,  and  even 
gave  to  him  a  certain  degree  of  popularity  upon  the  Republican  side 
of  the  chamber. 

The  House  was  organized  at  an  extra  session  called  by  the  Presi- 
dent on  the  15th  of  October,  1877.  The  failure  of  the  Army  Appro- 
priation Bill  at  the  preceding  session  rendered  this  early  meeting  of 
Congress  necessary.  Samuel  J.  Randall  was  re-elected  Speaker, 
receiving  149  votes ;  his  Republican  competitor,  James  A.  Garfield, 
receiving  132.  Among  the  new  members  of  the  House  were  some 
men  who  were  afterwards  advanced  to  great  prominence.  —  Thomas 
B.  Reed  of  Maine  came  from  the  Portland  district.  He  had  been 
a  member  of  the  Bar  some  twelve  years,  had  rapidly  risen  in  rank, 
had  served  in  the  State  Legislature  two  terms,  and  had  been 
Attorney-General  of  the  State  for  three  years.  He  was  a  strong 
man  in  his  profession,  and  had  an  admirable  talent  for  parliamentary 
service.  His  promotion  was  not  more  rapid  than  his  ability  justified 
and  his  friends  expected.  —  The  Massachusetts  delegation  received  a 
strong  reinforcement  in  several  new  members.  George  D.  Robinson 
was  a  conspicuous  figure.  He  developed  great  readiness  as  a  debater, 
and  his  career  in  the  House  plainly  indicated  the  eminence  he  has 
since  attained.  —  George  B.  Loring  came  from  the  Salem  district. 
He  had  served  several  terms  in  both  branches  of  the  Massachusetts 
Legislature  and  had  been  President  of  the  Senate.  He  had  for  many 
years  taken  active  part  in  National  contests,  and  of  the  personnel 
and  principles  of  the  political  parties  he  possessed  a  knowledge 
equaled  by  few  men  in  the  United  States.  —  William  W.  Rice  of 
the  Worcester  district  had  devoted  himself  assiduously  to  his  pro- 


EM  WAVED   BY    W.  WELLS  TOOD   &  CO. 


PRF-SI  DENT    1877-188 


REMONETIZATION  OF  SILVER.  605 

On  the  5th  of  the  previous  November,  during  the  extra  session, 
the  House  passed,  under  a  suspension  of  the  rules,  a  bill  for  the 
free  coinage  of  silver  dollars  of  41 2 1  grains,  full  legal  tender  for  all 
debts  public  and  private.  Mr.  Richard  P.  Bland  of  Missouri  was 
the  author  of  the  measure.  The  vote  upon  it  stood  163  ayes  to  34 
noes,  93  members  not  voting.  It  was  reported  in  the  Senate  with 
amendments,  in  December,  and  its  discussion  was  superseded  for  the 
time  by  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Matthews.  As  reported  from  the 
Finance  Committee,  it  provided  for  a  coinage  of  dollars  of  412-J- 
grains  to  the  extent  of  not  less  than  $2,000,000  or  more  than  $4,000,- 
000  per  month ;  all  seigniorage  to  accrue  to  the  Treasury.  A  second 
section,  proposed  by  Mr.  Allison  of  Iowa,  authorized  the  President 
to  invite  other  nations  to  take  part  in  a  conference,  and  to  appoint 
three  Commissioners  to  represent  the  United  States,  with  a  view  to 
the  adoption  of  a  common  ratio  for  gold  and  silver. 

The  bill  gave  rise  to  a  longer  and  broader  discussion  than  that 
which  had  occurred  on  Mr.  Matthews'  resolution.  It  was  opened  by 
Mr.  Morrill  of  Vermont.  He  pronounced  the  measure  a  "fearful 
assault  upon  the  public  credit.  It  resuscitates  the  obsolete  dollar 
which  Congress  entombed  in  1834,  worth  less  than  the  greenback  in 
gold,  and  yet  to  be  a  full  legal-tender."  He  thought  that  the  causes 
of  the  depreciation  of  silver  were  permanent.  "The  future  price 
may  waver  one  way  or  the  other,  but  it  must  finally  settle  at  a  much 
lower  point.  Nothing  less  than  National  will  and  power  can  mitigate 
its  fall." 

—  Mr.  Wallace  of  Pennsylvania  charged  that  the  opponents  of  the 
bill   were   "taking   a   course  for   the   abasement,   depreciation   and 
disuse  of  silver.     The   supporters  of  the   bill  favor  both  gold  and 
silver." 

—  Mr.  Dawes  dwelt  on  the  uncertain  commercial  value  of  silver  and 
on  the  harm  to  the  public  credit  threatened  by  the  impending  meas- 
ure, insisting  that  the  cheapest  money  would  be  our  only  money. 

—  Mr.  Beck  of  Kentucky  submitted  a  proposition  to  direct  the  coin- 
age of  "  not  less  than  $3,000,000  per  month,  or  as  much  more  as  can 
be  coined  at  the  mints  of  the  United  States." 

—  Mr.  Morgan  of  Alabama  said  the  law  did  not  deal  with  commer- 
cial values.     It  promised  coin  to  the  bondholder  —  coin  of  silver  or 
coin  of  gold. 

—  Mr.  Thurman  of  Ohio  thought  that  the  contract  provided  for 
the  payment  of  public  debts  in  coin  of  the  standard  of  1870,  when  the 


606  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

dollar  of  41 2 J  grains  was  full  legal-tender,  and  that  such  dollar 
would  approximate  to  gold  in  value. 

— Mr.  Kernan  of  New  York  said:  "  This  bill  does  not  proceed  upon 
the  basis  that  we  are  to  make  a  silver  dollar  equivalent  to  a  gold 
dollar,"  and  he  thought  that  the  cheaper  coin  would  inevitably  drive 
out  the  gold  coin. 

—  Mr.  Elaine  submitted  an  argument  "  that  gold  and  silver  are  the 
money  of  the  Constitution,  the  money  in  existence  when  the  Consti- 
tution was  formed,  and  Congress  has  the  right  to  regulate  their 
relations."     He  favored  the  coinage  of  "  such  a  silver  dollar  as  will 
not  only  do  justice  among  our  citizens  at  home,  but  prove  an  absolute 
barricade  against  the  gold  monometalists."     He  did  not  believe  that 
"  412£  grains  of  silver  would  make  such  a  dollar." 

—  Mr.  Davis  of  West  Virginia  favored   the   utilization   of  silver, 
"because  it  is  one  of  our  chief  products,  will   make   the   money 
known  to  the  Constitution  more  abundant,  will  relieve  distress,  and 
lead  back  to  prosperity." 

—  Mr.  McDonald  of  Indiana  thought  that  "  if  no  change  had  been 
made  in  our  coinage  laws,  no  proposition  would  be  made  to  change 
them  now.     The  Act  of  1873  demonetizing  the  silver  dollar  made 
the  pending  measure  necessary." 

—  Mr.  McPherson  said  that  he  was  "  charged  by  a  large  majority  of 
the  people  of  New  Jersey  to  remonstrate  against  the  measure,  which 
they  believe  will  retard  prosperity,   and   throw   a   blot   upon   our 
National  integrity." 

—  Mr.  Sargent  of  California,  representing  a  mining  State,  opposed 
the  bill,  "as  against  good  faith,  and  against  the  interests  of  the 
Government  and  of  the  people." 

—  Mr.  Jones  of  Nevada  supported  the  bill  in  a  very  elaborate  speech. 
He  had  an  enthusiastic  faith  in  silver  as  a  circulating  medium,  and 
had  given  a  great  deal  of  study  to  the  question. 

—  Mr.  Ingalls  of  Kansas  argued  "  that  the  public  debt  is  payable  in 
silver,  and  if  the  money  unit  should  be  established  in  the  metal  least 
subject  to  fluctuation  that  metal  is  silver.     Gold  is  the  money  of 
monarchs,  and  was  in  open  alliance  with  our  enemies  in  the  civil 
war." 

—  Mr.  Lamar  presented  resolutions  from  the  Legislature  of  his  State, 
instructing  the  senators  and  requesting  representatives  to  vote  for 
the  pending  measure.     He  explained  that  he  could  not  comply  with 
the  instructions,  and  would  give  the  reasons  for  his  vote  to  his  own 
people. 


DEBATE  ON  THE  SILVER  QUESTION.  607 

—  Mr.  Allison  of  Iowa  closed  the  debate,  drawing  the  distinction 
between  free  coinage  as  proposed  in  the  House  Bill,  and  limited 
coinage  as  proposed  in  the  Senate  amendment.  He  dwelt  on  the 
invitation  for  an  International  Monetary  Conference.  He  recited 
the  growing  demand  for  gold  in  Europe,  and  explained  that  "  France 
ceased  coining  silver  because  she  already  had  in  circulation  as  full 
legal-tender  from  $350,000,000  to  $400,000,000  in  that  coin." 

In  the  course  of  the  discussion  the  history  of  the  Demonetizing 
Act  of  1873  was  brought  out,  and  the  degree  of  attention,  or  rather 
inattention,  which  was  given  to  its  passage.  —  On  proceeding  to  vote 
the  Senate  rejected  an  amendment  by  Mr.  Morrill,  providing  that 
for  the  first  year  only  25  per  cent,  and  for  the  second  year  only  50 
per  cent,  of  the  duties  should  be  receivable  in  silver.  —  The  amend- 
ment of  Mr.  Wallace  "  that  $100,000,000  should  be  coined  in  silver 
dollars  within  three  years,  and  then  the  coinage  should  cease  if 
bullion  should  be  more  than  three  per  cent  below  par,"  was  also 
rejected.  —  The  Senate  refused  to  agree  to  an  amendment  offered  by 
Mr.  Edmunds,  "  that  nothing  in  this  section  contained  shall  be  con- 
strued to  interfere  with  the  coinage  of  gold  and  of  the  subsidiary 
silver  now  authorized  by  law."  —  The  section  providing  for  an  Inter- 
national Conference  was  adopted,  —  ayes,  40 ;  noes,  30.  —  Several 
forms  of  amendment  relative  to  the  legal-tender  provision  were 
suggested,  but  the  phrase  as  it  appears  in  the  law  was  preferred.  — 
Amendments  offered  by  Mr.  Eaton,  Mr.  Christiancy,  Mr.  Elaine,  and 
Mr.  Cameron  of  Wisconsin  to  increase  the  amount  of  silver  in  the 
coin,  so  as  to  approximate  it  to  the  value  of  the  gold  dollar,  were 
severally  rejected  by  large  majorities. — After  providing,  on  Mr. 
Chaffee's  motion,  for  certificates  of  not  less  than  $10  in  exchange 
for  silver  coin  deposited  and  redeemable  in  the  same  on  demand,  the 
Senate  passed  the  bill  with  its  amendments,  by  ayes  48,  noes  21. 

On  the  return  of  the  bill  to  the  House  of  Representatives  debate 
began  on  February  21st.  —  Mr.  Phillips  of  Kansas  advocated  the 
double  standard  with  the  ratio  of  metal  properly  determined,  and  he 
thought  this  was  done  in  the  dollar  of  412i  grains.  —  General  Butler 
of  Massachusetts  was  in  favor  of  insisting  on  the  House  bill  for  free 
coinage,  and  was  seconded  by  Mr.  Atkins  of  Tennessee.  —  Mr.  Bland 
was  willing  to  accept  the  Senate  amendments  and  then  pass  a  sup- 
plementary measure  for  free  coinage  on  an  appropriation  bill.  He 
added :  "  If  we  cannot  do  that  I  am  in  favor  of  issuing  paper  money 
enough  to  stuff  down  the  bondholders  until  they  are  sick."  —  Mr. 


608  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Dwight  of  New  York  sought  to  limit  the  legal-tender  quality  of  the 
silver  dollar  to  $50,  and  for  larger  sums  to  make  it  receivable  at  its 
value  in  gold.  —  A  motion  by  Mr.  Hewitt  of  New  York  to  lay  the 
bill  on  the  table  was  lost  by  ayes  71,  noes  205.  The  several  amend- 
ments of  the  Senate  were  then  adopted;  that  limiting  coinage  by 
203  ayes,  to  72  noes,  and  that  for  an  International  Monetary  Con- 
ference by  ayes  196,  noes  71.1  The  concurrence  of  the  House  in  these 
amendments  passed  the  bill. 

President  Hayes  returned  the  bill  to  the  House  of  Representatives 
with  his  objections,  on  the  28th  of  February.  He  based  his  veto  on 
the  proposition  that  "  the  silver  dollar  authorized  is  worth  eight  or 
ten  per  cent  less  than  it  purports  to  be  worth,  and  is  made  a  legal- 
tender  for  debts  contracted  when  the  law  did  not  recognize  such 
coin  as  lawful  money.  The  effect  would  be  to  put  an  end  to  the 
receipt  of  revenue  in  gold,  and  thus  compel  the  payment  of  silver 
for  both  the  principal  and  interest  of  the  public  debt."  This  he 
thought  would  be  regarded  as  a  grave  breach  of  public  faith  :  "  It  is 
my  firm  conviction  that  if  the  country  is  to  be  benefited  by  a  silver 
coinage,  it  can  only  be  done  by  the  issue  of  silver  dollars  of  full  value 
which  will  defraud  no  man.  A  currency  worth  less  than  it  purports 
to  be  worth,  will  in  the  end  defraud  not  only  creditors,  but  all  who 
are  engaged  in  legitimate  business,  and  none  more  surely  than  those 
who  are  dependent  on  their  daily  labor  for  their  daily  bread." 

i  The  International  Monetary  Conference  for  which  provision  was  made  in  the  bill 
was  held  at  Paris  in  the  autumn  of  1878.  The  American  Commissioners  were  Reuben  E. 
Fenton,  William  S.  Groesbeck  and  Francis  A.  Walker,  with  S.  Dana  Horton  as  Secretary. 
The  principal  European  Nations  were  present  with  the  exception  of  Germany.  The  Com- 
missioners received  the  impression  that  decided  progress  had  been  made  towards  the 
remonetization  of  silver  in  Europe,  but  subsequent  events  have  not  vindicated  their 
judgment.  Mr.  Goschen,  who  was  the  head  of  the  British  delegation,  declared  that  "  it 
would  be  a  misfortune  for  the  world  if  a  movement  for  a  sole  gold  standard  should  suc- 
ceed; "  but  he  indicated  no  purpose  on  the  part  of  his  own  government  to  change  from 
the  gold  standard.  The  Conference  came  to  no  practical  conclusion,  simply  agreeing 
that  "  it  is  necessary  to  maintain  in  the  world  the  monetary  functions  of  silver  as  well  as 
those  of  gold;  "  but  that  "  the  selection  for  use  of  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  metals,  or 
both  simultaneously,  should  be  governed  by  the  special  position  of  each  State  or  group 
of  States."  The  proposition  of  the  United  States  "that  the  delegations  recommend 
to  their  respective  governments  the  adjustment  of  a  fixed  relation  between  the  two 
metals  and  the  use  of  both  in  that  relation  as  unlimited  legal-tender  money,"  was  re- 
jected. The  supporters  of  a  bi-metallic  standard,  though  disappointed  in  the  immediate 
result  of  the  Conference,  received  encouragement  from  the  advance  in  International 
opinion  in  the  years  that  had  elapsed  since  the  previous  Conference  (1867).  At  that  time 
the  Nations  declared  almost  unanimously  in  favor  of  a  single  standard  of  gold.  Many 
of  them  had  found  in  the  interval  great  difficulty  in  maintaining  it  and  were  withheld 
from  declaring  for  the  double  standard  simply  by  the  influence  and  example  of  Eng- 
land. 


OPINIONS  ON  THE  SILVER  QUESTION.  609 

The  House  voted  at  once  on  the  veto  —  passing  the  bill  against 
the  objections  of  the  President,  by  ayes  196,  to  noes  73.  The  vote 
was  takeh  in  the  Senate  on  the  same  day,  without  debate,  and  the 
bill  was  passed  over  the  veto  by  ayes  46,  noes  19.  The  senators  not 
voting  were  paired.  Had  every  senator  been  present  and  voted  the 
result  would  have  been  ayes  53,  noes  23.  New  England,  New  York 
and  New  Jersey  supplied  the  principal  part  of  the  negative  vote. 
Mr.  Bayard,  Mr.  Pinkney  Whyte,  Mr.  Butler  of  South  Carolina,  and 
Mr.  Lamar  were  the  senators  from  the  South  who  voted  in  the  nega- 
tive. Pennsylvania,  the  South  and  the  West  sustained  the  bill.  The 
Pacific  coast  was  divided,  —  Mr.  Booth  supporting  the  bill  and  Mr. 
Sargent  opposing  it.  The  only  vote  for  the  bill  in  either  House  from 
New  England  was  that  of  General  Butler.  The  proportion  and 
general  location  of  the  votes  in  the  House  were  about  the  same  as  in 
the  Senate. 

The  opinions  of  senators  and  representatives  were  of  three  dis- 
tinct types.  The  majority  believed,  as  the  vote  showed,  in  the  policy 
of  coining  silver  dollars  of  full  legal-tender,  regardless  of  their  in- 
trinsic equality  of  value  with  gold  dollars,  —  thus  creating  two 
metallic  currencies  differing  in  value  for  all  purposes  of  commercial 
interchange  with  the  world,  and  keeping  them  at  an  equality  of  value 
at  home  by  the  force  of  law.  The  great  mass  of  the  Democratic 
party  and  a  considerable  number  of  Republicans  joined  in  this  view. 

A  small  minority  of  both  parties  disbelieved  in  the  use  of  silver 
as  money,  except  for  subsidiary  coins,  with  its  legal-tender  value 
limited  to  small  sums,  —  fifty  dollars  being  the  highest  proposed,  the 
majority  apparently  favoring  ten  dollars. 

A  majority  of  Republicans  and  a  minority  of  Democrats  asserted 
the  necessity  of  maintaining  silver  coin  at  full  legal-tender,  but  upon 
the  basis  of  equality  in  intrinsic  value  with  the  gold  dollar.  This  class 
feared  the  effect  of  an  exclusively  gold  standard,  while  the  supply  of 
gold,  compared  with  the  commercial  demands  of  the  world,  is  rela- 
tively and  rapidly  growing  less.  They  had  seen  the  ratio  of  gold- 
supply  far  beyond  that  of  silver  for  a  series  of  years  following  1850, 
and  then  for  a  series  of  years  the  ratio  of  silver-supply  in  excess  of 
the  supply  of  gold.  The  theory  advocated  by  this  class  rested  upon 
the  proposition  that  the  dollar  of  commerce  could  not  with  safety  be 
exclusively  based  either  upon  the  scarcer  or  upon  the  more  plentiful 
metal.  An  adjustment  is  required  providing  for  the  employment  of 

both  metals  —  maintaining  between  them  such  fair  equalization  as 
VOL.  II.  ao 


610 


TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 


would  not  violently  disturb  the  value  of  real  property  or  of  annual 
products,  and  most  important  of  all  would  secure  a  steadiness  in 
the  wages  of  labor  and  a  sound  currency  in  which  to  reconupense  it. 
The  supply  of  both  metals  for  two  periods  of  sixteen  years  each 
(1850-1865  both  included  and  1866-1881  both  included)  in  the 
United  States  and  in  the  world  at  large  may  suggest  some  useful 
lessons.1 

From  the  Silver  Bill  the  public  interest  turned  to  the  approaching 
day  of  Specie  Resumption,  January  1, 1879.  To  the  last  month  there 
had  been  many  doubters,  but  when  the  day  came  it  was  found  that 
the  Treasury  was  fully  prepared  and  the  gold  coin  which  had  borne 
a  premium  for  the  seventeen  years  of  specie  suspension  was  not  now 
.demanded  even  by  those  who  had  been  hoarding  legal-tender  notes 
for  that  express  purpose. 

The  result  has  proved  that  legislators  and  financiers  were  wisest 
-who  had  the  largest  faith  in  the  resources  of  the  nation.  The  legis- 
lation proved  to  be  adequate  to  the  end  in  view,  and  resumption 
^was  achieved  with  the  least  practicable  disturbance  of  trade  and  the 
least  practicable  depression  to  industry.  The  process  of  funding 
'the  debt  was  of  great  assistance,  as  was  the  constant  reduction  of 
•the  principal,  which  all  the  while  drew  our  bonds  from  Europe  and 

1  The  following  tables  have  been  prepared  with  care  by  Hon.  A.  London  Snowden, 
^the  able  superintendent  for  several  years  of  the  United  States  Mint  at  Philadelphia. 

PRODUCTION  OF   GOLD  AND  SILVER  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES,  FROM 
1850  TO  1881,  INCLUSIVE. 


YEARS. 

'GOLD. 

SILVER. 

YEARS. 

GOLD. 

SILVER. 

'1850 

450,000,000 

$50,000 

1866 

$53,500,000 

$10,000,000 

1851 

55,000,000 

50,000 

1867 

51,725,000 

13,500,000 

-1852 

60,000,000 

50,000 

1868 

48,000,000 

12,000,000 

1853 

65,000,000 

50,000 

1869 

49,500,000 

12,000,000 

1854 

60,000,000 

50,000 

1870 

50,000,000 

16,000,000 

1855 

55,000,000 

50,000 

1871 

43,500,000 

23,000,000 

1856 

55,000,000 

50,000 

1872 

36,000,000 

28,750,000 

1857 

55,000,000 

50,000 

1873 

36,000,000 

35,750,000 

1858 

50,000,000 

500,000 

1874 

33,500,000 

37,300,000 

1859 

50,000,000 

100,000 

1875 

33,500,000 

31,700,000 

1860 

46,000,000 

150,000 

1876 

39,930,000 

38,780,000 

1861 

43,000,000 

2,000,000 

1877 

46,900,000 

39,800,000 

1862 

39,200,000 

4,500,000 

1878 

51,200,000 

45,281,000 

1863 

40,000,000 

8,500,000 

1879 

38,900,000 

40,800,000 

1864 

46,100,000 

11,000,000 

1880 

36,000,000 

39,200,000 

1865 

53,225,000 

11,250,000 

1881 

30,650,000 

43,150,000 

Total  .    . 

$822,525,000 

$38,400,000 

Total  .    .    . 

$678,805,000 

$467,011,000 

Total  Gold  for  thirty-two  years,  $1,501,330,000.    Total  Silver,  $505,411,000. 


DECAY  OF  AMERICAN  CARRYING-TRADE. 


611 


thus  reduced  the  amount  due  for  foreign  interest.  The  monthly 
charge  for  interest  had  been  in  1865  as  high  as  $12,581.474, —  a  part 
payable  in  paper.  During  the  fiscal  year  ending  with  June,  1879,  it 
was  only  $6,981,148.  It  is  obvious  that  from  this  source  alone  the 
Treasury  was  greatly  strengthened. 

Generous  credit  was  accorded  to  Secretary  Sherman  for  the  great 
achievement.  It  seldom  happens  that  the  promoter  of  a  policy  in 
Congress  has  the  opportunity  to  carry  it  out  in  an  Executive  Depart- 
ment. But  Mr.  Sherman  was  the  principal  advocate  of  the  Resump- 
tion Bill  in  the  Senate,  and  during  the  two  critical  years  preceding 
the  day  for  coin  payment  he  was  at  the  head  of  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment. He  established  a  financial  reputation  not  second  to  that  of 
any  man  in  our  history. 


During  the  period  of  the  Crimean  war  (1854-6),  the  mercan- 
tile marine  of  the  United  States  gained  so  rapidly  that  it  approached 
equality  with  that  of  England,  in  tonnage.  But  even  before  the 
calamities  of  our  civil  war,  a  change  was  foreshadowed  favorable  to 


ANNUAL  PRODUCTION  OF  GOLD  AND  SILVER  IN  THE  WORLD,  EXCLUSIVE  OF  THE 
UNITED  STATES,  FROM  1850  TO  1881,  INCLUSIVE. 


YEARS. 

GOLD. 

SILVER. 

YEARS. 

GOLD. 

SILVER. 

1850    . 

$15,000,000 

$39,500,000 

1866   .... 

$67,600,000 

$40,750,000 

1851    . 

12,600,000 

39,950,000 

1867   .... 

52,300,000 

40,725,000 

1852    . 

72,750,000 

40,550,000 

1868   .... 

61,725,000 

38,225,000 

1853    . 

90,450,000 

40,550,000 

1869   .... 

56,725,000 

35,500,000 

1854    . 

67,450,000 

40,550,000 

1870   .... 

56,850,000 

35,575,000 

1855    . 

80,075,000 

40,550,000 

1871   .... 

63,500,000 

38,050,000 

1856    . 

82,600,000 

40,600,000 

1872   .... 

63,600,000 

36,500,000 

1857     . 

78,275,000 

40,600,000 

1873   .... 

60,200,000 

53,500,000 

1858    . 

74,650,000 

40,150,000 

1874   .... 

57,250,000 

34,200,000 

1859    . 

74,850,000 

40,650,000 

1875  .... 

64,000,000 

48,800,000 

1860    . 

73,250,000 

40,650,000 

1876   .... 

63,770,000 

48,820,000 

1861    . 

70,800,000 

42,700,000 

1877   .... 

67,100,000 

41,200,000 

1862    . 

68,550,000 

40,700,000 

1878   .... 

67,800,000 

49,519,000 

1863    . 

66,950,000 

40,700,000 

1879   .... 

69,800,000 

55,200,000 

1864    . 

66,900,000 

40,700,000 

1880   .... 

70,400,000 

57,500,000 

1865    . 

66,975,000 

40,700,000 

1881   .     .    .    . 

65,800,000 

62,800,000 

Total   .    . 

$1,072,125,000 

$649,800,000 

Total  .    .    . 

$1,008,420,000 

$716,864,000 

Total  Gold,  $2,080,545,000.    Total  Silver,  $1,366,664,000. 

TOTAL  FOR  THE  WHOLE  WORLD. 

GOLD.  SILVER. 

1850-1865 $1,894,650,000  $688,200,000 

1866-1881 1,687,225,000  1,183,875,000 


612  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

England,  hostile  to  the  United  States.  It  was  the  change  from  sail 
to  steam.  The  utilization  of  iron  as  a  ship-building  material,  the 
cheapening  of  fuel,  the  superior  speed,  all  betokened  a  radical  change 
in  transportation  on  the  principal  ocean  routes  of  the  world.  From 
the  close  of  1856  to  the  outbreak  of  the  rebellion  the  average  loss  to  the 
Navigation  interests  of  the  United  States  was  two  per  cent  annually. 
This  ratio  of  loss  was  immensely  accelerated  by  the  course  of  events 
during  the  civil  war,  involving  the  utter  destruction  of  many  Ameri- 
can vessels  or  their  change  of  flag.  The  natural  result  was  that  in 
the  spring  of  1865  we  stood  in  the  carrying  trade  relatively  and 
absolutely  far  behind  our  position  in  1855. 

Practically,  nothing  has  since  been  done  to  recover  the  lost 
ground.  Provision  was  made  by  Congress  for  the  admission  of  cer- 
tain ship-building  materials  free  of  duty.  This  somewhat  improved 
the  prospects  and  stimulated  the  construction  of  sailing  vessels ;  but 
the  competition  in  the  world's  carrying-trade  is  in  steam-vessels. 
Great  Britain  had  for  many  years  covered  the  ocean  with  subsidized 
steamers,  paying  heavily  for  mail  service  until  the  lines  were  self- 
supporting,  and  withdrawing  her  aid  only  when  competition  could  be 
safely  defied.  Congress  steadily  refused  to  enter  upon  any  system 
of  the  same  kind.  Fitful  aid  was  granted  to  special  lines  here  and 
there,  but  no  general  system  was  devised,  and  the  aid  extended  being 
temporary  and  accompanied  sometimes  by  scandals  in  legislation  was 
in  the  end  rather  hurtful  than  helpful. 

Meanwhile  the  products  we  were  exporting  and  importing  en- 
larged so  rapidly  that  we  were  giving  more  cargoes  to  ships  than  any 
other  nation  of  the  world, — furnishing  in  the  year  1879  between 
thirteen  and  fourteen  million  tons  of  freight,  and  this  altogether 
exclusive  of  our  coasting  trade.  Some  very  extreme  cases  occurred, 
strikingly  illustrative  of  the  reluctance  of  Congress  to  help  the  Ameri- 
can carrying  trade.  It  was  shown  by  statistics  that  we  were  export- 
ing to  Brazil  not  over  $7,000,000  of  our  products,  and  taking  from  her 
over  $40,000,000  of  her  products.  We  had  no  steam  communication 
with  Rio  Janeiro,  except  by  way  of  Europe.  In  1876  the  Emperor 
of  Brazil,  an  able  and  enlightened  monarch,  visited  the  United  States. 
As  the  result  of  his  inquiries  and  examinations  His  Majesty  expressed 
a  sincere  desire  for  closer  commercial  connections  between  the  two 
countries,  and  eagerly  spoke  of  his  willingness  to  contribute  by  an 
annual  bounty  to  the  establishment  of  a  line  of  steamers. 

After  the  Emperor's  return  to  his  dominions  John  Roach  (a  native 


DECAY  OF  AMERICAN  CARRYING-TRADE.  613 

of  Ireland,  but  long  naturalized  in  the  United  States),  an  energetic 
and  capable  ship-builder,  of  unusual  foresight,  energy,  and  integrity 
of  purpose,  sent  an  agent  to  Rio  Janeiro,  and  procured  a  contract  from 
the  Brazilian  Government  pledging  $125,000  per  annum,  provided 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  would  give  the  same  amount, 
for  the  establishment  of  a  steam  line  between  the  two  countries.  Not 
doubting  the  readiness  of  the  American  Government  to  respond,  Mr. 
Roach  proceeded  with  full  confidence,  and  built  vessels  for  the  line 
in  his  own  ship-yard.  The  enterprise  promised  the  best  commercial 
results  ;  but  to  his  chagrin  and  discomfiture,  Mr.  Roach  found  that  no 
amount  of  argument  or  appeal  by  those  who  were  willing  to  speak 
for  him  could  induce  Congress  to  contribute  a  single  dollar  for  the 
encouragement  of  the  line.  Brazil  cancelled  her  offer  when  the 
United  States  refused  to  join  with  her.  Mr.  Roach's  ships  were 
withdrawn,  and  the  line  was  surrendered  to  an  inferior  class  of  Eng- 
lish steamers. 

During  the  period  of  this  futile  experiment,  as  well  as  before  and 
afterwards,  Congress  annually  appropriated  more  than  a  million 
dollars  for  the  maintenance  of  the  South-American  squadron  of 
naval  vessels,  to  protect  a  commerce  that  did  not  exist,  and  for  the 
creation  of  which  the  United-States  Government  was  unwilling  to 
pay  even  ten  per  cent  of  the  cost  annually  of  maintaining  the 
squadron.  Every  intelligent  man  knows  that  it  is  impossible  to 
maintain  a  navy  unless  there  be  a  commercial  marine  for  the  edu- 
cation of  sailors.  The  American  marine  preceding  1861  was  so 
large  that  it  could  furnish  seventy-six  thousand  sailors  to  maintain 
a  blockading  squadron  on  the  South  Atlantic  and  Gulf  coasts.  The 
value  of  this  school  for  seamen,  as  one  of  the  arms  for  National 
defense,  could  not  have  been  more  strikingly  illustrated,  or  more 
completely  proved.  The  lesson  should  have  been  heeded.  It  is  a 
familiar  adage  requiring  no  enforcement  of  argument,  that  navies  do 
not  grow  at  the  top.  They  grow  from  and  out  of  a  commercial 
marine  that  educates  men  for  sea  service.  If  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  had,  since  the  close  of  the  war,  expended  annually 
upon  the  mercantile  marine  one-fifth  of  the  amount  that  has  been 
expended  upon  the  Navy,  our  ships  would  have  covered  every  sea, 
and  the  Navy  would  have  grown  of  itself.  Instead  of  that,  we  have 
been  constructing  the  navy  as  an  exotic,  forcing  it  to  grow  without 
a  favoring  atmosphere,  establishing  it  with  officers  and  not  with  men, 
educating  cadets  on  land,  and  not  educating  sailors  on  the  ocean. 


614  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

The  Democratic  party  in  Congress  was  hostile  to  every  movement 
for  the  encouragement  of  our  carrying  trade,  and  the  Republican 
party  was  fatally  divided.  The  men  who  had  earnestly  attempted 
to  do  something  were  therefore  constantly  defeated  and  compelled 
to  abandon  the  effort.  Following  this  came  the  demand  for  free 
ships,  which  meant  simply  that  American  capitalists  might  secure 
the  registry  of  the  United  States  for  vessels  built  in  English  ship- 
yards and  manned  with  English  sailors.  This  is  the  last  movement 
necessary  to  complete  the  dominion  of  Great  Britain  over  the  sea, 
to  complete  the  humiliation  of  the  United  States  as  a  commercial 
country.  It  would  abolish  the  art  of  ship-building  on  this  side  of 
the  Atlantic,  would  educate  no  American  sailor,  except  in  the  coast- 
ing trade.  As  a  result,  our  naval  vessels,  if  a  Navy  should  be  main- 
tained, would  necessarily  be  constructed  where  the  merchant  vessels 
were  constructed;  and  the  last  point  of  absurdity  in  this  policy 
would  be  reached  when,  in  case  of  possible  conflict  with  a  Euro- 
pean Power,  we  should  be  dependent  for  naval  vessels  upon  a  for- 
eign country  from  which  we  could  be  cut  off  by  the  superior  strength 
of  our  opponent  on  the  sea. 

With  a  more  extended  frontage  on  the  two  great  oceans  of  the 
world  than  any  other  nation ;  with  a  larger  freightage  than  that  of 
any  other  nation,  it  will  be  a  reproach  to  the  United  States,  more 
pointed  and  decisive  every  year,  if  it  neglects  to  establish  a  policy 
which  shall  develop  a  mercantile  marine,  and  as  the  outgrowth  of 
the  mercantile  marine,  a  Navy  adequate  to  all  the  wants  of  the 
Republic.  If  Congress,  in  the  sixteen  years  following  the  war,  had 
given  a  tithe  of  the  encouragement  to  the  building  and  sailing  of 
ships,  that  it  has  wisely  given  to  manufactures,  to  the  construction 
of  railways,  and  to  every  industrial  pursuit  on  land,  our  flag  would 
before  the  close  of  that  period  have  stood  relatively  on  the  ocean  as 
strong  and  as  permanent  as  it  stood  before  steam  was  applied  to  the 
carrying  trade  of  the  world.  In  those  sixteen  years  the  Government 
expended  more  than  three  hundred  millions  on  the  Navy ! 1  It  ex- 
pended scarcely  three  millions  to  aid  in  building  up  its  mercantile 
marine,  and  expended  much  of  that  unwisely. 

1  The  Naval  expenditures  for  the  sixteen  years  following  the  war  were  as  follows:  — 

Four  years  under  President  Johnson $114,500,000 

Eight  years  under  President  Grant       .        .        .        .        .          154,500,000 
Four  years  under  President  Hayes 57,000,000 


CHAPTER    XXVII. 

THE  QUESTION  OF  THE  FISHERIES.  —  ORIGIN  OF  AMERICAN  RIGHTS.  —  EARLY  DISPUTES. 

—  TREATY  OF  1782.  — TREATY  OF  GHENT.  —  TREATY  OF  1818.  —  RECIPROCITY  TREATY. 

—  JOINT  HIGH    COMMISSION.  —  FISHERIES  QUESTION  TO  BE  ARBITRATED.  —  SELEC- 
TION OF  ARBITRATORS.  —  NEGOTIATION  FOR  RECIPROCITY  TREATY.  —  THE  HALIFAX 
AWARD.  —  ITS  LARGE  AMOUNT.  — DISSATISFACTION.  —  ACTION  OF  SENATE.  —  CORRE- 
SPONDENCE WITH  THE  BRITISH  GOVERNMENT.  —  MR.  EVARTS  AND  LORD  SALISBURY. 

r  I  1HE  question  of  the  fisheries  has  been  in  dispute  between  Great 
I  Britain  and  the  United  States  for  more  than  seventy  years. 
During  that  period  it  has  been  marked  by  constantly  recurring,  and 
sometimes  heated,  controversy ;  and  it  will  continue  to  be  a  source 
of  irritation  until  the  two  Governments  can  reach  a  solution  which 
shall  prove  satisfactory,  not  only  to  the  negotiators,  but  to  the 
class  of  brave  and  adventurous  men  who,  under  both  flags,  are 
engaged  in  the  sea-fisheries.  For  a  long  period  each  recurring 
season  brought  its  series  of  complaints,  often  threatening  violence 
between  the  fishermen,  and  tending  to  bring  the  two  Governments 
into  actual  collision.  An  adjustment  was  effected  by  the  Reciprocity 
Treaty  of  1854  and  again  by  the  Treaty  of  Washington  in  1871,  but 
for  so  brief  a  time  under  each  agreement  as  only  to  postpone  the 
difficulty  and  not  to  settle  it.  There  is  a  right  and  a  wrong  side  to 
this  question,  and  either  the  Government  of  the  United  States  or 
the  Government  of  England  is  to  blame  for  the  chronic  contention 
which  marks  it. 

The  American  case  can  be  briefly  stated.  When  the  independ- 
ence of  the  Colonies  was  recognized  in  the  preliminary  treaty  of 
1782  the  provisions  agreed  upon  in  regard  to  two  subjects  were  held 
by  both  Governments  to  be  final  and  perpetual.  One  was  the  terri- 
tory embraced  within  the  boundaries  conceded  to  the  United  States : 
the  other  was  the  right  to  the  fisheries.  The  people  of  the  Colonies, 
especially  the  people  of  the  New-England  Colonies,  had  as  British 
subjects  used  all  the  British  fisheries  in  what  is  now  known  as  the 
Dominion  of  Canada  and  the  island  of  Newfoundland ;  and  in  the 

615 


616  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

preliminary  treaty  to  which  George  III.  gave  his  assent  in  1782,  as 
well  as  in  the  final  and  more  definite  treaty  of  1783,  it  was  provided 
that  the  privilege  should  continue  to  be  enjoyed  by  citizens  of 
the  new  Republic.1  No  doubt  of  the  intent  and  proper  construc- 
tion of  this  clause  in  both  treaties  had  ever  been  suggested,  until 
the  English  and  American  negotiators  were  engaged  in  framing  the 
treaty  of  peace  at  Ghent  in  1814,  at  the  close  of  the  second  war 
with  Great  Britain.  The  British  negotiators  claimed  that  the  war  of 
1812  had  put  an  end  to  all  existing  treaties,  and  that,  the  fishery 
clause  in  the  treaty  of  1782  being  no  longer  in  force,  our  fishery 
rights  had  expired,  and  if  revived  at  all  must  be  revived  under  new 
stipulations. 

The  direct  purpose  of  this  movement  was  obvious.  By  the  treaty 
of  1782  it  was  declared  that  "  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  River 
from  its  source  to  the  ocean  shall  forever  remain  free  and  open  to  the 
subjects  of  Great  Britain  and  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States." 
It  was  at  that  time  assumed  that  the  boundary  line  between  the  ter- 
ritory of  British  America  and  the  United  States,  as  set  forth  in  the 
treaty  of  peace,  would  at  a  certain  point  cross  the  Mississippi  River, 
and  that  the  navigation  of  that  river  would  thus  be  secured  to  the 
subjects  of  his  Britannic  Majesty.  But  this  was  soon  ascertained  to 
be  an  error,  and  to  the  end  that  the  line  might  be  determined  with 
precision  the  Jay  treaty  of  1794  provided  for  a  joint  survey.  By  the 
time  of  the  negotiation  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  twenty  years  later,  it 
was  definitely  ascertained  that  the  northern  boundary  of  the  United 
States  ran  above  the  sources  of  the  Mississippi,  while  the  purchase 
of  Louisiana  had  given  to  our  Government  the  control  of  the  mouth 
of  the  river.  Hence  the  privilege  of  navigating  the  Mississippi  (so 


1  The  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  1782  is  as  follows:  "  It  is  agreed  that  the  people  of 
the  United  States  shall  continue  to  enjoy  unmolested  the  right  to  take  fish  of  every  kind 
on  the  Grand  Bank,  and  on  all  the  other  banks  of  Newfoundland;  also  in  the  Gulph  of 
St.  Lawrence,  and  at  all  other  places  in  the  sea,  where  the  inhabitants  of  both  countries 
used  at  anytime  heretofore  to  fish;  and  also  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  States 
shall  have  liberty  to  take  fish  of  every  kind  on  such  part  of  the  coast  of  Newfoundland 
as  British  fishermen  shall  use  (but  not  to  dry  or  cure  the  same  on  that  island);  and  also  on 
the  coasts,  bays,  and  creeks  of  all  other  of  his  Britannic  Majesty's  dominions  in  America; 
and  that  the  American  fishermen  shall  have  the  liberty  to  dry  and  cure  fish  in  any  of 
the  unsettled  bays,  harbours,  and  creeks  of  Nova  Scotia,  Magdalen  Islands,  and  Labra- 
dor, so  long  as  the  same  shall  remain  unsettled;  but  so  soon  as  the  same  or  either  of 
them  shall  be  settled,  it  shall  not  be  lawful  for  the  said  fishermen  to  dry  or  cure  fish  at 
such  settlement,  without  a  previous  agreement  for  that  purpose  with  the  inhabitants, 
proprietors,  or  possessors  of  the  ground."  Precisely  the  same  concession  is  embodied  in 
the  treaty  of  1783. 


BRITISH  POSITION  UNTENABLE.  617 

earnestly  desired  by  the  British  Government)  could  not  be  insisted 
on,  since  the  river  from  its  source  to  the  sea  was  wholly  within  the 
territory  of  the  United  States.  If,  therefore,  our  fishery  rights  were 
void  by  the  abrogation  of  ,the  fishery  clause  of  the  treaty  of  1782, 
the  restoration  of  those  rights  could  be  demanded  only  in  exchange 
for  some  equivalent ;  and  the  equivalent  to  be  asked,  as  was  well 
known,  would  be  the  concession  to  Great  Britain  of  the  free  naviga- 
tion of  the  Mississippi  River. 

The  position  thus  taken  by  the  British  Government  was  plainly 
untenable.  The  treaty  of  1782  was  only  the  formal  declaration  of 
certain  facts  consequent  upon  the  termination  of  the  Revolutionary 
war.  That  treaty  recognized  three  conclusions  as  fully  established : 
I.  The  independence  of  the  thirteen  Colonies ;  II.  The  territorial 
limits  of  the  United  States ;  III.  The  rights  and  methods  of  the  com- 
mon fisheries  in  Colonial  waters  which  the  citizens  of  the  United  States 
had  exercised  as  British  subjects.  —  The  history  of  the  negotiation 
and  the  explicit  language  of  the  treaty  prove  that  the  clause  touch- 
ing the  fisheries  was  the  recognition  of  an  existing  right  and  not  the 
grant  of  a  new  right.  The  British  Government,  in  1814,  might  with 
equal  force  and  justice  have  claimed  that  under  this  theory  of  the 
abrogation  of  the  treaty  of  1782  by  war,  the  recognition  of  our 
independence  and  the  establishment  of  our  boundaries  had  also 
become  void.  It  is  a  rather  curious  fact,  apparently  unknown  or 
unnoticed  by  the  negotiators  of  1814,  that  as  late  as  1768  the  law 
officers  of  the  Crown  under  the  last  Ministry  of  Lord  Chatham  (to 
whom  was  referred  the  treaty  of  1686  with  France,  containing  certain 
stipulations  in  reference  to  the  Newfoundland  fisheries)  gave  as  their 
opinion  that  such  clauses  were  permanent  in  their  character,  and 
that  so  far  the  treaty  was  valid,  notwithstanding  subsequent  war. 
The  American  negotiators  of  course  refused  to  admit  the  principle 
(that  the  war  of  1812  had  put  an  end  to  any  provision  of  the 
treaty  of  1782)  or  its  application;  and  the  result  was  that  the 
Treaty  of  Ghent  was  signed  and  ratified,  without  any  provisions 
either  as  to  the  Fisheries  or  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  River, 
—  a  position  which  left  the  United  States  in  the  full  exercise  of 
its  rights  under  the  treaty  of  1782,  from  which  it  could  be  ex- 
cluded only  by  the  exercise  of  force  on  the  part  of  the  British  Gov- 
ernment. There  was  no  danger  of  force  being  applied.  The  war 
of  1812  had  satisfied  Great  Britain  that  she  could  gain  nothing  by 
going  to  war  with  the  United  States. 


618  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Within  four  years  of  this  time  a  treaty  was  negotiated  and  ratified, 
which  is  altogether  the  most  inexplicable  in  our  diplomatic  history. 
The  war  just  concluded  with  Great  Britain  had  reflected  the  highest 
honor  upon  our  navy  ;  while  on  land  we  had  demonstrated,  if  not  the 
absolute  impossibility,  certainly  the  serious  difficulty  and  danger,  of 
an  invasion  of  our  soil  by  any  foreign  power.  We  had  risen  greatly 
in  the  estimation  of  the  world  as  to  our  capacity  for  war,  and  we  had 
learned  the  especial  importance  of  maintaining  the  fisheries  as  the 
nursery  of  our  sailors.  The  State  Department  was  under  the  direc- 
tion of  John  Quincy  Adams,  who,  above  all  statesmen  of  his  day, 
was  supposed  to  appreciate  the  value  of  the  fisheries  and  who  had 
stubbornly  refused  at  Ghent  to  consent  to  any  diminution  of  our 
fishing-rights  even  if  the  alternative  should  be  the  continuation  of 
the  war.  Yet  on  the  20th  of  October,  1818,  a  treaty  was  concluded 
at  London,  containing  as  its  first  and  most  important  provision  an 
absolute  surrender  of  some  of  our  most  valuable  rights  in  the  fish- 
eries. The  negotiation  was  conducted  by  Albert  Gallatin  and  Richard 
Hush,  men  of  established  reputation  for  diplomatic  ability  and  patri- 
otic zeal.  The  history  of  the  transaction  is  meagre.  A  brief  and 
most  unsatisfactory  correspondence  contains  all  that  we  know  in 
regard  to  it.  Neither  in  the  minute  and  important  diary  of  Mr. 
Adams,  nor  in  the  private  letters,  as  published,  of  Mr.  Gallatin  and 
Mr.  Rush,  is  there  the  slightest  indication  of  any  reason  for  recom- 
mending, or  any  necessity  for  conceding,  the  treaty. 

By  reference  to  the  Third  Article  of  the  treaty  of  1782,  already 
quoted,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  rights  of  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  were  recognized ;  first,  to  take  fish  of  every  kind  on  the  Grand 
Bank,  and  on  all  the  other  banks  of  Newfoundland,  and  also  in  the 
Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  and  at  other  places  in  the  sea  where  the 
inhabitants  of  both  countries  used  at  any  time  before  the  treaty  to 
fish;  second,  to  take  fish  of  every  kind  on  such  part  of  the  coast  of 
Newfoundland  as  British  fishermen  should  use,  but  not  to  dry  or 
cure  the  same  on  that  island ;  third,  to  take  fish  of  every  kind  on 
the  coasts,  bays,  and  creeks  of  all  other  of  his  Britannic  Majesty's 
dominions  in  America ;  fourth,  to  dry  and  cure  fish  in  any  of  the 
unsettled  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks  of  Nova  Scotia,  Magdalen  Islands, 
and  Labrador.  By  the  provisions  of  the  First  Article  of  the  treaty 
of  1818,  the  right  to  take  fish  on  the  coast  of  Newfoundland  and 
Labrador  was  limited  to  certain  portions  of  the  coast,  without  preju- 
dice>  however,  to  any  of  the  exclusive  rights  of  the  Hudson  Bay  Com- 


RECIPROCITY  TREATY  WITH  CANADA.  619 

pany ;  second,  the  right  to  dry  and  cure  fish  was  granted  on  the 
limited  portions  of  the  coast  of  Newfoundland  and  Labrador,  as 
long  as  they  remained  unsettled ;  third,  for  this  privilege  of  drying 
and  curing  fish,  the  United  States  "renounced  forever  any  liberty 
theretofore  enjoyed  or  claimed  by  the  inhabitants  thereof  to  take, 
dry,  or  cure  fish  on  or  within  three  marine  miles  of  any  of  the  coasts, 
bays,  creeks,  or  harbors  of  his  Britannic  Majesty's  dominions  in 
America  not  included  within  the  limits  so  described."  Of  this  ex- 
traordinary renunciation  Mr.  Rush  wrote,  many  years  after:  "We 
[Mr.  Gallatin  and  himself]  inserted  the  clause  of  renunciation ;  the 
British  plenipotentiaries  did  not  desire  it." 

From  the  execution  of  this  treaty  —  as  might  well  have  been 
seen  —  the  misunderstanding  between  the  two  countries  in  relation 
to  the  fisheries  became  more  and  more  complicated.  The  treaty 
seems  to  have  considered  only  the  cod-fishing,  and  even  from  that 
point  of  view  we  paid  an  enormous  price  for  the  poor  privilege  of 
drying  fish  on  the  Newfoundland  coast,  by  abandoning  the  right 
of  mackerel  fishing  within  three  marine  miles  of  all  other  coasts  of 
his  Britannic  Majesty's  dominions  in  America ;  for  from  that  time 
the  mackerel  fisheries  grew  into  large  proportions,  and  without  re- 
gard to  treaty  provisions  the  right  of  cod-fishing  on  the  banks  could 
never  have  been  taken  from  us. 

The  difficulty  of  determining  the  three-mile  line,  the  presence  of 
armed  vessels  to  prevent  its  violation,  the  vexatious  seizure  of  Ameri- 
can fishing-vessels,  the  reckless  injustice  of  the  British  local  courts 
in  their  condemnations,  constantly  exasperated  both  parties,  and 
on  several  occasions  threatened  to  bring  the  two  Governments  into 
actual  collision.  Both  countries  recognized  the  necessity  of  a  more 
definite  settlement ;  and  in  June,  1854,  after  thirty-six  years  of  con- 
tinuous disturbance  and  danger,  Mr.  Marcy  as  Secretary  of  State, 
and  Lord  Elgin,  Governor-General  of  Canada,  as  plenipotentiary  for 
Great  Britain,  negotiated  what  is  known  as  the  Reciprocity  Treaty. 
It  was  hoped  that  the  opportunity  would  be  used  to  settle  this  ques- 
tion permanently,  or  at  least  to  secure  an  understanding  that  we 
should  not  upon  the  termination  of  a  temporary  arrangement  be 
relegated  to  the  irritating  injustice  of  the  treaty  of  1818.  But  the 
wary  diplomatists  of  England,  with  sarcasm  scarcely  concealed,  had 
so  phrased  the  opening  clause  of  the  Reciprocity  treaty  as  to  make 
its  provisions  only  "additional  to  the  liberty  secured  to  the  United 
States  fishermen  by  the  Convention  of  1818." 


620  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

The  right  in  the  fisheries  conceded  by  the  treaty  of  18541  — 
originally  ours  under  the  treaty  of  1782,  and  unnecessarily  and 
unwisely  renounced  in  the  treaty  of  1818  —  was  not  given  freely 
but  in  consideration  of  a  great  price.  That  price  was  reciprocity 
of  trade  (so-called)  between  the  United  States  and  the  British  North 
American  Provinces  in  certain  commodities  named  in  the  treaty. 
The  selection  as  shown  by  the  schedule  was  made  almost  wholly 
to  favor  Canadian  interests.  There  was  scarcely  a  product  on  the 
list  which  could  be  exported  from  the  United  States  to  Canada 
without  loss,  while  the  great  market  of  the  United  States  was 
thrown  open  to  Canada  without  tax  or  charge  for  nearly  every 
thing  which  she  could  produce  and  export.  All  her  raw  materials 
were  admitted  free,  while  our  manufactures  were  all  charged  with 
heavy  duty,  the  market  being  reserved  for  English  merchants.  The 
fishery  question  had  been  adroitly  used  to  secure  from  the  United 
States  an  agreement  which  was  one-sided,  vexatious,  and  unprofitable. 
It  had  served  its  purpose  admirably  as  a  makeweight  for  Canada 
in  acquiring  the  most  generous  and  profitable  market  she  ever 
enjoyed  for  her  products.  And  yet  Canadians  seemed  honestly 

i  Article  I.  of  the  treaty  of  1854  provided:— - 

"  ARTICLE  I.  It  is  agreed  by  the  high  contracting  parties  that  in  addition  to  the 
liberty  secured  to  the  United-States  fishermen  by  the  above-mentioned  convention  of 
Oct.  20,  1818,  of  taking,  curing,  and  drying  fish  on  certain  coasts  of  the  British  North 
American  colonies  therein  defined,  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  States  shall  have,  in 
common  with  the  subjects  of  her  Britannic  Majesty,  the  liberty  to  take  fish  of  every 
kind,  except  shell-fish,  on  the  sea-coasts  and  shores,  and  in  the  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks 
of  Canada,  New  Brunswick,  Nova  Scotia,  Prince  Edward's  Island,  and  of  the  several 
islands  thereunto  adjacent,  without  being  restricted  to  any  distance  from  the  shore,  with 
permission  to  land  upon  the  coasts  and  shores  of  those  colonies  and  the  islands  thereof, 
and  also  upon  the  Magdalen  Islands,  for  the  purpose  of  drying  their  nets  and  curing 
their  fish;  provided  that,  in  so  doing,  they  do  not  interfere  with  the  rights  of  private 
property,  or  with  British  fishermen,  in  the  peaceable  use  of  any  part  of  the  said  coast 
in  their  occupancy  for  the  same  purpose." 

In  Article  II.  of  the  treaty  it  was  reciprocally  agreed  as  follows  :  — 

"ARTICLE  II.  It  is  agreed  by  the  high  contracting  parties  that  British  subjects 
shall  have,  in  common  with  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  the  liberty  to  take  fish 
of  every  kind,  except  shell-fish,  on  the  eastern  sea-coasts  and  shores  of  the  United  States 
north  of  the  36th  parallel  of  north  latitude,  and  on  the  shores  of  the  several  islands 
thereunto  adjacent,  and  in  the  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks  of  the  said  sea-coasts  and 
shores  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  said  islands,  without  being  restricted  to  any  dis- 
tance from  the  shore,  with  permission  to  land  upon  the  said  coasts  of  the  United  States 
and  of  the  islands  aforesaid,  for  the  purpose  of  drying  their  nets  and  curing  their  fish; 
provided  that,  in  so  doing,  they  do  not  interfere  with  the  rights  of  private  property, 
or  with  the  fishermen  of  the  United  States,  in  the  peaceable  use  of  any  part  of  the  said 
coasts  in  their  occupancy  for  the  same  purpose." 

Both  concessions  reserved  "the  salmon  and  shad  fisheries  and  all  fisheries  in 
rivers  and  the  mouths  of  rivers." 


RECIPROCITY  TREATY  WITH  CANADA.  621 

to  believe  that  they  had  conceded  to  us  more  on  the  sea  than  we 
had  conceded  to  them  on  the  land  ! l 

The  treaty  of  1854  was  to  continue  for  ten  years,  with  the  right 
of  termination  upon  twelve  months'  notice  by  either  party.  It  was 
terminated  on  the  17th  of  March,  1866,  upon  notice  given  by  the 
United  States  one  year  before.  By  the  abrogation  of  this  treaty  our 
fishery  rights  were  again,  through  our  own  unwise  concession,  sub- 
jected to  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  1818.  But  Canada  gained 
little  by  this  relegation,  while  she  suffered  great  loss  in  consequence 
of  being  deprived  of  her  free  access  to  the  markets  of  the  United 
States  for  all  her  products  of  forest,  field  and  sea. 

During  the  existence  of  the  Reciprocity  Treaty  the  enterprise  and 
capital  of  the  American  fishing  industry  had  in  some  degree  devel- 
oped mackerel  fishing,  while  a  free  market  in  the  United  States  had 
encouraged  the  inshore  fishing  of  the  British  dominions  to  a  great 
and  profitable  extent.  Perhaps  at  this  time  the  British  fishermen 
placed  an  exaggerated  estimate  upon  the  three-mile  fisheries,  while 
the  American  fishermen  followed  the  privilege  rather  as  a  conven- 
ience and  as  an  exemption  from  the  annoyance  and  expense  of  seizure 
and  trial,  than  as  having  any  very  large  intrinsic  value. 

When  the  Joint  High  Commissioners  proceeded  to  consider  the 
question  of  the  fisheries  three  different  views  were  manifest.  The 
British  Commissioners  desired  a  restoration  of  the  Reciprocity  Treaty, 
to  which  the  American  Commissioners  replied  that  such  a  concession 
was  impossible.  During  the  discussion  to  which  this  refusal  led, 
the  America-n  Commissioners  declared  that  the  value  of  these  in- 
shore fisheries  had  been  largely  over-estimated,  and  that  the  United- 
States  Government  desired  to  secure  their  enjoyment,  not  for  their 
commercial  or  intrinsic  value,  but  for  the  purpose  of  removing  a 
source  of  dissension.  They  intimated  that  $1,000,000  was  the  largest 

1  The  following  is  a  complete  list  of  the  articles  to  be  admitted  in  either  country 
from  the  other  free  of  all  duty :  — 

Grain,  flour,  and  breadstuff s  of  all  kinds;  animals  of  all  kinds:  fresh,  smoked,  and 
salted  meats;  cotton-wool,  seeds,  and  vegetables;  undried  fruits,  dried  fruits;  fish  of  all 
kinds;  products  of  fish,  and  of  all  other  creatures  living  in  the  water;  poultry,  eggs; 
hides,  furs,  skins,  or  tails,  undressed;  stone  or  marble,  in  its  crude  or  unwrought  state; 
slate;  butter,  cheese,  tallow;  lard,  horns,  manures;  ores  of  metals,  of  all  kinds;  coal; 
pitch,  tar,  turpentine,  ashes;  timber  and  lumber  of  all  kinds,  round,  hewed,  and  sawed, 
unmanufactured  in  whole  or  in  part;  fire-wood;  plants,  shrubs,  and  trees;  pelts,  wool; 
fish-oil;  rice,  broom-corn,  and  bark;  gypsum,  ground  or  unground;  hewn,  or  wrought, 
or  unwrought  burr  or  grindstones;  dyestuffs;  flax,  hemp,  and  tow,  unmanufactured; 
unmanufactured  tobacco;  rags. 


622  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

sum  which  they  would  be  disposed  to  offer  for  the  full  and  perma- 
nent use  of  the  inshore  fisheries  without  the  addition  of  any  privilege 
as  to  the  free  admission  of  fish  and  fish-oil.  The  British  Commis- 
sioners considered  this  to  be  an  entirely  inadequate  estimate  of  the 
value  of  the  fisheries  and  found  insuperable  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
an  absolute  and  permanent  transfer  of  the  rights. 

After  prolonged  consideration  and  discussion  the  American  Com- 
missioners finally  declared  that  they  were  "  willing  (subject  to  the 
action  of  Congress)  to  concede  the  admission  of  Canadian  fish  and 
fish-oil  free  of  duty  as  an  equivalent  for  the  use  of  the  inshore  fish- 
eries, and  to  make  the  arrangement  for  a  term  of  years."  They  were 
firmly  and  intelligently  of  opinion  that  free  fish  arid  free  oil  to  the 
Canadian  fishermen  would  be  more  than  an  equivalent  for  these  fish- 
eries ;  but  they  were  also  willing  to  agree  upon  a  reference  to  deter- 
mine that  question  and  the  amount  of  money-payment  that  might  be 
found  necessary  to  complete  the  equivalent  —  it  being  understood 
that  the  action  of  Congress  would  be  needed  before  any  payment 
could  be  made.  This  proposition  was  referred  by  the  British  Com- 
missioners to  their  Government,  was  accepted  by  cable,  and  was  at 
once  embodied  in  the  treaty.  These  articles  adopted  the  language 
of  the  Reciprocity  Treaty  of  1854,  recognizing,  as  it  might  again  be 
claimed  by  the  British  Government,  the  existence  and  full  force  of 
the  Convention  of  1818.  The  Commission  then  provided  for  the 
freedom  from  duty  of  Colonial  fish  and  fish-oil,  granted  reciprocity 
of  inside  fisheries  to  British  fishermen,  and  finally  provided  that  the 
question  of  compensation  should  be  referred  to  three  Commissioners.1 

It  would  not  be  just  to  impute  carelessness  to  the  American 
members  of  the  Joint  High  Commission  in  framing  the  articles  of 
the  treaty  relating  to  the  fisheries.  It  is  quite  evident  however  that 

*  Article  XXII.  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington  is  as  follows :  "  Inasmuch  as  it  is 
asserted  by  the  Government  of  her  Britannic  Majesty  that  the  privileges  accorded  to  the 
citizens  of  the  United  States  under  Article  XVIII.  of  this  treaty  are  of  greater  value 
than  those  accorded  by  Articles  XIX.  and  XXI.  of  this  treaty  to  the  subjects  of  her 
Britannic  Majesty,  and  this  assertion  is  not  admitted  by  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  it  is  further  agreed  that  Commissioners  shall  be  appointed  to  determine,  having 
regard  to  the  privileges  accorded  by  the  United  States  to  the  subjects  of  her  Britannic 
Majesty,  as  stated  in  Articles  XIX.  and  XXI.  of  this  treaty,  the  amount  of  any  compen- 
sation which,  in  their  opinion,  ought  to  be  paid  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
to  the  Government  of  her  Britannic  Majesty  in  return  for  the  privileges  accorded  to  the 
citizens  of  the  United  States  under  Article  XVIII.  of  this  treaty  ;  and  that  any  sum  of 
money  which  the  said  Commissioners  may  so  award  shall  be  paid  by  the  United-States 
Government,  in  a  gross  sum,  within  twelve  months  after  such  award  shall  have  been 
given." 


CONCESSION  OF  AMERICAN  COMMISSIONERS.  623 

they  had  not  closely  studied  the  question,  and  had  allowed  the  Brit- 
ish Commissioners  to  gain  an  advantage.  It  was  a  mistake  to  agree 
to  a  new  confirmation  of  the  treaty  of  1818,  apparently  establish- 
ing it  as  the  basis  of  all  our  rights  and  giving  to  it  the  authori- 
tative position  which  the  treaty  of  1782  originally  held  and  should 
have  continued  to  hold  on  this  question.  We  might  not  be  able  to 
annul  the  treaty  of  1818,  but  it  was  not  wise  to  forfeit,  by  the  assent 
of  so  imposing  a  body  as  the  Joint  High  Commission,  our  right  of 
protest  against  the  injustice  of  its  provisions  and  to  agree  practically 
to  the  assertion  that  our  fishing-rights  began  in  1818.  But  a  much 
graver  blunder  was  committed.  Our  Commissioners  had  very  justly 
maintained  that  the  admission  of  Canadian  fish  and  fish-oil  free  of 
duty  into  the  United  States  would  be  more  than  afo  equivalent  for 
the  fishery  rights  to  be  conceded  by  the  British  Government.  They 
had  also  maintained  that  for  a  concession  of  those  rights  in  per- 
petuity the  Government  of  the  United  States  would  not  be  willing 
to  pay  more  than  $1,000,000.  Holding  these  views,  believing  as 
they  did  that  we  were  giving  more  than  we  were  gaining,  the  Com- 
missioners nevertheless  consented  to  a  reference  to  determine  how 
much  in  addition  we  should  pay  to  Great  Britain.  The  agreement 
certainly  should  have  been  to  ascertain  to  which  party,  if  either,  a 
money  consideration  should  be  paid.  Still  further,  if  they  were 
willing  to  imply  in  advance  that  a  money  consideration  might  be 
due  to  Great  Britain  and  not  to  the  United  States,  a  maximum 
limit  should  have  been  inserted  in  the  treaty  beyond  which  the 
American  Government  would  not  be  willing  that  any  award  should 
extend.  But  by  practically  conceding,  in  the  first  place,  that  money 
should  be  paid  to  Great  Britain,  and  by  leaving  to  the  Reference  to 
determine  the  amount  without  any  limit  whatever,  they  offered  a 
great  temptation  to  wrong  dealing,  against  which  the  United  States 
had  reserved  no  defense  and  could  secure  no  redress. 


Of  the  three  Commissioners  referred  to  in  the  Article  providing 
for  an  arbitration,  the  treaty  directed  that  one  should  be  appointed 
by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  one  by  Her  Britannic  Majesty, 
and  the  third  by  the  President  and  Her  Britannic  Majesty  conjointly; 
and  if  they  could  not  agree  upon  the  third  within  a  period  of  three 
months  after  the  Article  should  take  effect,  then  "  the  third  Commis- 


624  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

sioner  shall  be  named  by  the  representative  at  London  of  his  Majesty 
the  Emperor  of  Austria  and  King  of  Hungary."  The  legislation 
necessary  to  give  the  Fishery  Articles  of  the  treaty  full  effect  having 
been  completed  in  1873,  Acting  Secretary  of  State  J.  C.  Bancroft 
Davis,  on  the  7th  of  July  in  that  year,  notified  the  British  Minister 
at  Washington,  Sir  Edward  Thornton,  that  in  regard  to  the  third 
Commissioner  "the  Government  of  the  United  States  is  willing  to 
take  the  initiative  and  suggest  to  her  Majesty's  Government  the 
names  of  a  number  of  persons,  each  one  of  whom  would  in  the 
opinion  of  the  President  be  influenced  only  by  a  desire  to  do  justice 
between  the  parties."  He  then  proposed  (for  the  consideration  of 
the  British  Government)  the  names  of  the  Mexican  Minister,  the 
Russian  Minister,  the  Brazilian  Minister,  the  Spanish  Minister,  the 
French  Minister,  and  the  Minister  of  the  Netherlands,  residing  at 
the  time  in  Washington.  Mr.  Davis  advised  Sir  Edward  that  they 
had  "omitted  the  names  of  those  Ministers  who  have  not  the  neces- 
sary familiarity  with  the  English  language,"  and  also  of  those  who 
"  by  reason  of  the  peculiar  political  connection  of  their  governments  with 
Great  Britain  would  probably  esteem  themselves  disqualified  for  the 
position" 

Sir  Edward  Thornton,  being  absent  from  Washington,  did  not 
receive  the  note  of  Mr.  Davis  until  the  llth  of  July,  when  (as  he 
advised  him  on  the  16th)  he  immediately  telegraphed  the  substance 
of  it  to  Lord  Granville,  and  dispatched  a  copy  by  mail.  Five  weeks 
later,  on  the  19th  of  August,  without  any  intervening  correspondence, 
Sir  Edward  (writing  from  the  Catskills)  recalled  to  Secretary  Fish 
that  he  had  spoken  to  him  when  last  in  Washington  "  on  the  subject 
of  the  Belgian  Minister,  Mr.  Delfosse,  being  a  suitable  person  as 
third  Commissioner  on  the  Commission  which  is  to  sit  at  Halifax.  .  .  . 
I  had  hoped  [wrote  Sir  Edward]  that  he  would  have  been  agreeable 
to  your  Government,  until  I  spoke  to  you  upon  the  subject.  I  sub- 
sequently received  a  telegram  from  Lord  Granville,  desiring  me  to 
ascertain  whether  Mr.  Delfosse  would  be  agreeable  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  as  third  Commissioner.  .  .  .  Lord  Crran- 
ville  desired  me  to  ask  you  in  his  name  that  you  would  consent  to  the 
appointment  of  the  Belgian  Minister,  who,  as  he  believes,  would  be  in 
all  respects  a  suitable  person  for  the  position." 

Mr.  Fish  was  utterly  astounded  by  this  proposition  submitted  by 
Sir  Edward  Thornton  and  coming  almost  as  a  personal  and  pressing 
request  from  Lord  Granville.  The  one  Minister  who  was  regarded 


PROPOSED  ARBITRATION  OF  FISHERY-RIGHTS.  625 

as  especially  disqualified  was  Mr.  Maurice  Delfosse,  the  representative 
of  Belgium  at  Washington.  The  disqualification  did  not  convey  a 
personal  reflection  upon  that  gentleman,  but  was  based  upon  the 
relations  of  his  government  to  the  Government  of  Great  Britain. 
The  Kingdom  of  Belgium  owed  its  origin  to  the  armed  interposition 
of  Great  Britain,  and  its  continuance,  to  her  friendship  and  her 
favor.  Its  first  monarch  Leopold,  who  had  been  but  five  years  dead 
when  the  Treaty  of  Washington  was  negotiated,  had  married  the 
Princess  Charlotte,  daughter  of  the  Prince-Regent  of  England ;  he 
was  brother  to  Queen  Victoria's  mother,  and  to  Prince  Albert's 
father ;  he  held  the  rank  of  Marshal  in  the  British  Army,  and  had 
been  for  a  long  period  in  receipt  of  an  annual  allowance  of  fifty 
thousand  pounds  sterling  from  the  British  Exchequer.  He  was  on 
terms  of  the  most  affectionate  friendship  with  the  Queen  and  was 
her  constant  and  confidential  adviser. 

His  son  and  successor  Leopold  II.,  the  reigning  monarch,  cousin 
of  Queen  Victoria,  had  married  an  Austrian  princess,  and  the  unfor- 
tunate Carlotta,  widow  of  the  Emperor  Maximilian,  was  his  sister. 
The  House  of  Hapsburg  associated  the  American  support  of  the 
Mexican  President  Juarez  with  the  death  of  Maximilian,  and  might 
not  be  well  disposed  towards  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 
It  was  not  therefore  an  altogether  happy  circumstance  that  the 
Austrian  Ambassador  in  London  had  been  designated  as  the  person 
to  choose  a  third  Commissioner,  in  the  event  of  the  British  and 
American  Governments  failing  to  agree  in  his  selection.  A  sense  of 
honest  dealing  at  the  outset  had  plainly  suggested  the  ineligibility 
of  a  Belgian  subject  to  the  third  Commissionership,  and  suggested 
also  the  impropriety  of  leaving  to  the  Austrian  Ambassador  in  Lon- 
don the  selection  of  the  Commissioner.  The  narrative  will  show  that 
the  British  Government  had  determined  upon  the  one  or  the  other, 
and  in  the  end  accomplished  both. 

The  reply  of  Mr.  Fish  to  Sir  Edward's  extraordinary  communi- 
cation of  August  19  was  prompt  and  pointed.  In  a  note  of  August 
21  he  courteously  affected  to  believe  that  a  grave  mistake  had  oc- 
curred in  the  transmission  of  Lord  Granville's  telegram.  He  could 
not  believe  that  Lord  Granville,  advised  of  the  inability  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  to  assent  to  the  selection  of  Mr. 
Delfosse,  would  deliberately  propose  that  gentleman.  Mr.  Fish  was 
sure  that  there  had  been  "some  mis-conveyance  of  information  or  in- 
struction, for  which  the  telegraph  must  have  been  responsible."  He 
VOL.  II.  "  40 


626  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

reminded  Sir  Edward  that  in  an  interview  with  him  in  "Washington 
he  (Mr.  Fish)  had  declared  that  "  while  entertaining  a  high  personal 
regard  for  the  character  and  abilities  of  the  Belgian  Minister  to  this 
country,  there  are  reasons  in  the  political  relations  between  his 
government  and  that  of  Great  Britain  why  the  representative  of  the 
former  could  not  be  regarded  as  an  independent  and  indifferent  arbi- 
trator on  questions  between  the  Government  of  her  Majesty  and  the 
United  States."  Mr.  Fish  still  further  reminded  Sir  Edward  that 
during  the  session  of  the  Joint  High  Commission,  when  the  question 
of  referring  the  Fishery  dispute  to  the  head  of  some  foreign  State 
was  under  discussion,  Earl  de  Grey,  chairman  of  the  British  Commis- 
sioners, in  proposing  several  powers,  voluntarily  said  to  the  American 
Commissioners,  "  I  do  not  name  Belgium  or  Portugal,  because  Great 
Britain  has  treaty  arrangements  with  them  that  might  be  supposed  to 
incapacitate  them" 

Five  days  later  Sir  Edward  advised  Mr.  Fish  that  "  as  the  matters 
which  are  to  be  considered  by  the  Commission  deeply  concern  the 
people  of  Canada,  it  was  necessary  to  consult  the  Government  of 
the  Dominion  upon  the  point  of  so  much  importance  as  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  third  Commissioner  ;  and  some  delay  was  therefore  un- 
avoidable. ...  I  have  now  [continued  Sir  Edward]  the  honor  to 
inform  you  that  her  Majesty's  Government  has  received  a  communi- 
cation from  the  Governor-General  of  Canada  (Lord  Dufferin)  to  the 
effect  that  the  Government  of  the  Dominion  strongly  objects  to  the 
appointment  of  any  of  the  foreign  Ministers  residing  at  Washington  as 
third  Commissioner  on  the  above  mentioned  Commission,  and  prefers  to 
resort  to  the  alternative  provided  by  the  treaty;  namely,  to  leave 
the  nomination  to  the  Austrian  Ambassador  at  London." 

The  State  Department  was  justified  by  this  time  in  ^considering 
that  the  British  Government  was  resorting  to  devices  for  delay. 
Circumstances  all  pointed  in  that  direction.  The  Government  of 
the  United  States  had  submitted  the  names  of  six  Ministers,  repre- 
senting countries  of  which  at  least  four  held  more  intimate  relations 
with  Great  Britain  than  with  the  United  States.  Specific  reasons  had 
been  given  for  not  mentioning  others.  After  a  totally  unreasonable 
delay  (from  July  11  to  August  19)  the  English  Government  re- 
sponded, proposing  the  very  name  that  had  originally  been  objected  to  by 
the  United  States  — proposing  it  with  the  urgency  of  a  personal  request 
from  Lord  G-ranville.  When  it  was  found  that  our  Government 
would  not  accept  Mr.  Delfosse,  the  intelligence  came  within  a  week 


THE  BRITISH  MINISTER  AND  SECRETARY  FISH.  627 

that  the  Canadian  Government  objected  to  any  foreign  Minister,  who 
had  been  residing  in  Washington,  as  third  Commissioner.  Of  course 
this  objection  excluded  Mr.  Delfosse  with  all  the  others,  for  Mr. 
Delfosse  had  resided  in  Washington  several  years  longer  than  the 
majority  of  those  who  had  been  proposed  by  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Fish  very  justly  and  sharply  rebuked  this  interposition  of  the 
Government  of  Canada.  On  September  6  he  wrote  to  Sir  Edward 
that  "  the  reference  to  the  people  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada  seems 
to  imply  a  practical  transfer  to  that  Province  of  the  right  of  nomi- 
nation which  the  treaty  gives  to  her  Majesty."  He  informed  Sir 
Edward  that  "  in  the  opinion  of  the  President,  a  refusal  on  his  part 
to  make  a  nomination,  or  to  concur  in  the  conjoint  nomination  con- 
templated by  the  treaty,  on  the  ground  that  some  local  interest  (that 
for  instance  of  the  fishermen  of  Gloucester)  objected  to  the  primary 
mode  of  filling  the  commission  intended  by  the  treaty,  might  well 
be  regarded  by  her  Majesty's  Government  as  a  departure  from  the 
letter  and  spirit  of  the  treaty."  Mr.  Fish  went  still  farther :  "  In 
the  President's  opinion,  such  a  course  on  his  part  might  justify  the 
British  Government  in  remonstrating,  and  possibly  in  hesitating  as 
to  its  future  relations  to  the  Commission."  The  rebuke  was  not  too 
severe,  because  if  the  matter  was  to  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  the 
people  of  Canada,  it  would  have  been  far  wiser  to  remand  the  nego- 
tiation originally  to  the  authorities  of  the  Dominion,  with  whom  the 
United  States  could  probably  have  come  to  an  agreement  much 
more  readily  than  with  the  Imperial  Government. 

On  the  24th  of  September  Sir  Edward  advised  Mr.  Fish  that  he 
was  instructed  by  Earl  Granville  to  propose  that  "the  Ministers  of 
the  United  States  and  of  her  Majesty,  at  the  Hague,  should  be 
authorized  to  see  if  they  could  not  agree  upon  some  Dutch  gentle- 
man to  act  as  third  Commissioner,  who  would  be  acceptable  to  both 
Governments."  Mr.  Fish  replied  to  Sir  Edward,  two  days  later,  that 
in  regard  to  the  plan  of  selecting  "some  Dutch  gentleman,"  through 
the  American  and  English  Ministers  at  the  Hague,  he  was  directed 
by  the  President  to  say  that  such  mode  of  appointment  "  varies  from 
the  provisions  of  the  treaty,  which  has  received  the  Constitutional 
assent  of  the  Senate.  The  President,  therefore,  does  not  feel  him- 
self at  liberty  to  entertain  a  proposition  which  would  require  the 
conclusion  of  a  new  treaty  in  the  Constitutional  form  before  the 
proposition  could  be  assented  to  by  the  United  States."  Mr.  Fish 
added,  with  a  justifiable  brusqueness  not  often  found  in  his  diplomatic 


628  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

correspondence,  that  "  it  is  deeply  to  be  regretted  that  her  Majesty's 
Crovernment  has  made  no  effort  to  comply  with  that  provision  of  the 
Twenty-third  Article  of  the  Treaty,  whereby  it  was  agreed  that  the  third 
Commissioner  should  be  named  by  the  President  of  the  United  States 
and  her  Britannic  Majesty  conjointly" 

A  reply  came  from  Sir  Edward  on  the  1st  of  October.  To  Mr. 
Fish's  charge  that  no  effort  had  been  made  on  the  part  of  her 
Majesty's  Government,  he  answered  by  reminding  him  that  he  had 
proposed  Mr.  Delfosse,  and  also  "  some  Dutch  gentleman "  to  be 
agreed  upon  by  the  Ministers  of  England  and  the  United  States  at 
the  Hague.  Mr.  Fish  replied  on  the  3d  of  October,  in  a  somewhat 
caustic  review  of  the  entire  correspondence,  in  which  he  clearly 
proved  that  "the  effort  of  this  Government  to  carry  into  execution 
the  provisions  of  the  Twenty-third  Article  of  the  treaty  have  hitherto 
failed  from  no  fault  or  negligence  on  its  part"  He  closed  his  note  by 
renewing  the  statement  that  "  the  President  earnestly  hopes  that  the 
two  Governments  will  yet  agree  upon  a  third  Commissioner,  and  to 
that  end  is  willing  to  waive  the  question  of  the  time  within  which 
the  joint  nomination  should  be  made." 

After  protracted  correspondence  Sir  Edward  advised  Mr.  Fish 
that  her  Majesty's  Government  considered  that  the  three  months 
having  expired,  the  appointment  of  the  third  Commissioner  rested 
with  the  representative  in  London  of  the  Emperor  of  Austria 
and  King  of  Hungary.  Mr.  Fish  argued  to  the  contrary  in  a  dis- 
patch of  October  25th.  He  was  unable  to  perceive  that  any  right  of 
nomination  had  passed  beyond  the  control  of  the  two  Governments, 
and  still  entertained  the  hope  that  an  effort  might  be  made  by  her 
Majesty's  Government  to  agree  upon  a  third  Commissioner,  in  the 
spirit  of  the  treaty  and  with  the  concurrent  appointment  of  the  two 
Governments.  Sir  Edward  replied,  on  December  2,  as  instructed  by 
Lord  Granville,  that  "  her  Majesty's  Government,  concurring  with  the 
Law  Officers  of  the  Crown,  thinks  the  Article  is  explicit  as  to  the 
appointment  of  the  third  Commissioner  being  left  to  the  Austrian 
representative  in  London  if  not  made  within  a  certain  date,"  and 
added :  "  Her  Majesty's  Government,  therefore,  considers  that  the 
Government  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada  might  complain  if  the  nom- 
ination were  not  made  as  provided  for  by  the  treaty ;  and  that  if 
the  arbitrator  were  to  give  a  decision  unfavorable  to  Canada  great 
discontent  might  arise  in  consequence  in  the  colony."  Earl  Gran- 
ville, therefore,  asked  that  the  two  Governments  might  agree  upon  an 


FRESH  PROPOSAL  FOR  RECIPROCITY  TREATY.  629 

"  identic  note  to  be  addressed  to  the  Austrian  Government  by  the 
representatives  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  requesting 
that  the  Austrian  embassador  at  London  may  be  authorized  to 
proceed  with  the  nomination  of  the  third  Commissioner." 


Having  by  this  dilatory  if  not  tortuous  process  thrown  the  choice 
of  the  third  Commissioner  into  the  hands  of  the  Austrian  Ambas- 
sador at  London,  the  British  Government  evidently  felt  that  it  had 
won  a  great  advantage.  If  that  Government  had  reason  to  fear  the 
influence  of  any  foreign  Minister  residing  in  Washington,  —  unless 
he  should  be  one  representing  a  country  dependent  upon  British 
power  for  its  origin  and  existence,  —  it  assuredly  could  not  doubt 
that  an  Austrian  Ambassador,  residing  in  London,  instinctively  hos- 
tile to  a  Republican  government,  and  cherishing  a  special  grievance 
against  the  United  States,  would  lean  to  the  English  side  of  any 
question  submitted  to  arbitration.  Beyond  these  considerations  came 
the  social  influences  in  the  richest  capital  of  the  world  —  all  favorable 
to  England,  all  hostile  to  the  United  States.  Apparently  believing 
that  the  United  States  would  shrink  from  presenting  the  case  of  the 
fisheries  to  a  commission  in  which  Great  Britain  had  so  manifest  an 
advantage,  that  Government  proposed  (before  the  Commission  could 
sit)  to  open  negotiations  looking  to  a  renewal  of  the  Reciprocity 
Treaty  between  Canada  and  the  United  States.  The  British  authori- 
ties had  in  their  own  hands,  as  they  naturally  supposed,  a  strong 
leverage,  by  which  our  Government  could  be  coerced,  as  it  had  been 
in  1854,  into  reciprocity  of  trade  upon  other  products.  It  was  to 
be  a  series  of  moral  coercions,  either  accomplished  or  attempted. 
Coerced  into  accepting  Mr.  Delfosse  as  third  Commissioner,  we  were 
now  to  be  coerced  into  a  commercial  treaty  for  the  benefit  of  Canada 
in  order  to  escape  the  possible  award  on  the  fisheries. 

•  What  the  British  Government  desired  was  substantially  a  re- 
newal of  the  Reciprocity  Treaty  of  1854,  —  fishery  clauses  included. 
That  treaty  had  expired  in  1866  ;  and  to  aid  in  securing  its  renewal 
a  highly  intelligent  special  Commissioner,  Mr.  Rothery,  was  now  sent 
to  Washington  to  aid  the  British  Legation  in  negotiating  such  a 
convention.  Success  was  more  easily  attained  with  the  Executive 
department  of  our  Government  than  with  the  Legislative.  A  treaty 
of  reciprocity  was  agreed  upon  between  Mr.  Fish  and  Sir  Edward 


630  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Thornton,  and  duly  transmitted  to  the  Senate.  If  ratified  by  that 
body,  it  would  still  be  incomplete  until  the  consent  of  the  House 
should  be  obtained.  But  it  was  rejected  by  the  Senate  on  the  3d  of 
February,  1875 ;  and  the  two  Governments  were  left  to  renew  the 
arrangements  for  the  Fishery  Commission,  which  by  agreement  had 
not  been  affected  by  the  postponement  resulting  from  the  negotia- 
tions for  reciprocity. 

Various  delays  hindered  the  agreement  between  the  two  Govern- 
ments upon  an  identic  note  to  be  addressed  to  the  Austrian  Gov- 
ernment, requesting  the  appointment  of  the  third  Commissioner  by 
the  representative  of  that  Government  in  London  ;  and  it  was  not 
accomplished  until  the  winter  of  1876-77.  Mr.  Fish  realized  by  that 
time  that  he  no  longer  had  the  power  to  prevent  the  selection  of 
Mr.  Delfosse,  and  that  this  selection,  made  against  open  and  avowed 
opposition,  might  be  especially  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the 
United  States.  Mr.  Fish  realized  also  that  Count  von  Beust,  the 
Austrian  Ambassador,  might  select  some  one  even  more  objectiona- 
ble than  Mr.  Delfosse,  if  that  were  possible  ;  and  he  therefore  thought 
it  expedient  to  withdraw  his  personal  objections  to  that  gentleman, 
and  agree  to  that  which  he  could  not  change  or  avert.  Upon  intima- 
tions to  that  effect  Count  von  Beust  named  Mr.  Delfosse  as  the  third 
Commissioner.  The  Canadian  Government,  whose  interests  and 
influence  in  the  matter  had  been  apparently  consulted  by  Lord  Gran- 
ville  at  every  step,  and  which  had  been  represented  as  objecting  to 
the  appointment  of  any  Minister  accredited  to  Washington,  gladly 
approved  the  selection  of  Mr.  Delfosse,  although  he  was  and  had 
been  for  many  years  "  a  Minister  accredited  to  Washington." 

The  record  of  this  case,  as  thus  shown  by  the  official  correspond- 
ence, is  not  creditable  to  the  English  Government.  If  in  an  arbi- 
tration between  private  persons,  either  of  them  should  make  palpa- 
ble and  avowed  effort  to  secure  a  particular  man  —  connected  with 
him  by  kinship  and  business  interests  —  he  would  be  considered 
as  acting  unfairly,  the  common  judgment  of  the  people  would  con- 
demn him,  and  the  tribunal  to  which  the  award  was  rendered  would 
unhesitatingly  set  it  aside  as  vitiated,  upon  proof  that  advantage 
had  been  secured  in  the  selection  of  the  Arbitrators.  The  English 
Government  would  no  doubt  fall  back  for  its  defense  upon  the 
acquiescence  which  was  ultimately  and  reluctantly  extorted  from 
Secretary  Fish.  But  the  official  correspondence  shows  that  Mr.  Fish 
resisted  and  protested  as  long  as  he  had  power  to  resist  and  protest, 


HALIFAX  FISHERY    COMMISSION.  631 

and  consented  when  his  consent  was  only  a  form  of  courtesy  to  the 
gentleman  whose  appointment  had  been  predetermined  by  the  British 
Government.  It  might  have  been  wiser,  perhaps,  for  Mr.  Fish  to 
continue  his  protest  to  the  last,  and  leave  to  the  British  Government 
no  shadow  of  excuse  for  its  extraordinary  and  unjustifiable  course. 

The  Fishery  Commission  met  at  Halifax,  N.S.,  in  the  summer  of 
1877.  Sir  Alexander  T.  Gait  was  the  British  Commissioner,  Honor- 
able Ensign  H.  Kellogg  of  Massachusetts  was  the  United-States 
Commissioner,  and  Mr.  Delfosse  was  the  third.  The  agent  of  the 
British  Government  was  Sir  Richard  Ford,  a  member  of  the  British 
Diplomatic  Corps  ;  and  the  agent  of  the  United-States  Government 
was  Honorable  Dwight  Foster,  formerly  a  judge  of  the  Massachusetts 
Supreme  Court.  The  British  case  -was  represented  by  five  able 
members  of  the  Colonial  Bar,  four  of  whom  were  Queen's  counsel, 
—  Sir  W.  V.  White  way  of  Newfoundland ;  L.  C.  Davies,  Premier  of 
Prince  Edward's  Island ;  J.  Doutre  of  Montreal ;  C.  J.  Weatherby 
of  the  Province  of  Nova  Scotia ;  S.  R.  Thompson  of  New  Brunswick. 
The  American  case  was  represented  by  the  agent,  Judge  Foster, 
Richard  H.  Dana  of  Massachusetts,  and  William  Henry  Trescot  of 
South  Carolina,  American  Secretary  of  Legation  in  London  under 
the  Presidency  of  Mr.  Fillmore,  and  Assistant  Secretary  of  State 
during  the  Administration  of  Mr.  Buchanan. 

The  case  was  elaborately  prepared  and  ably  argued  on  both  sides. 
Reduced  to  its  most  simple  statement,  the  contention  of  the  United- 
States  Government  was  this :  that  the  duty  of  the  Commission  was 
limited ;  that  it  was  charged  with  the  decision  of  no  political  or 
diplomatic  questions ;  that  all  such  questions  had  been  determined 
by  the  high  contracting  parties  in  signing  the  treaty  of  Washington ; 
and  that  this  Commission  was  simply  a  reference  for  an  accounting 
in  a  given  department  of  trade.  They  contended  that  the  value  of 
the  inshore  fisheries  was  simply  their  value  as  mackerel  fisheries ; 
that  to  estimate  one-fourth  of  the  whole  mackerel-catch  as  taken  by 
American  fishermen  was  a  liberal,  even  an  extravagant  concession  on 
the  part  of  the  United  States ;  and  that  the  remission  of  duty  on 
Colonial  fish  and  fish-oil,  which  was  admitted  to  be  worth  8350,000 
per  annum  to  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  was  an  ample  equivalent. 

In  presenting  the  British  case  every  consideration  was  ]_  ut  for- 
ward by  the  clever  men  who  represented  it,  to  magnify  the  conces- 
sion made  to  the  United  States.  They  dwelt  at  great  length  upon 
the  thousands  of  miles  of  coast  thrown  open  to  Americans ;  upon 


632  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

the  fabulous  wealth  of  the  fisheries,  where  every  one  caught  had, 
like  the  fish  of  the  miracle  in  Scripture,  a  bit  of  money  in  its  mouth  ; 
upon  the  fact  that  the  chief  resource  and  variety  of  fishing  lay  with- 
in the  three-mile  limit.  They  managed  to  obscure  the  real  issue 
by  great  masses  of  confused  statistics,  and  caused  the  sparsely 
settled  provinces  to  appear  as  granting  an  extraordinary  privilege 
to  American  fishermen,  in  allowing  their  nets  to  be  dried  and  their 
fish  to  be  cured  on  the  sands  and  rocks  of  their  remote  and  unin- 
habited coasts. 

After  the  respective  cases  had  been  stated  and  all  the  evidence 
and  arguments  heard  it  was  found  that  the  differences  of  opinion 
between  the  British  and  the  United-States  Commissioners  were  irrec- 
oncilable. The  decision  was  therefore  left  to  Mr.  Delfosse  —  as  was 
anticipated  from  the  first.  He  estimated  the  superior  advantage 
of  the  privilege  of  the  inshore  Colonial  fisheries,  over  such  as  were 
given  to  British  subjects  in  American  waters,  at  $5,500,000  for  their 
twelve  years'  use.  The  result  of  the  negotiation,  therefore,  was 
that  for  twelve  years'  use  of  the  inshore  British  Colonial  fisheries, 
which  were  ours  absolutely  by  the  treaty  of  1782,  we  paid  to  the 
British  Government  the  award  of  $5,500,000,  and  remitted  duties 
to  the  amount  of  $350,000  per  annum  (for  the  period  of  twelve  years, 
$4,200,000),  besides  building  up  into  a  profitable  and  prosperous 
industry  the  shore-fishing  of  Prince  Edward's  Island,  which  before 
the  Reciprocity  Treaty  was  not  even  deemed  worthy  of  computation. 


The  award  was  made  on  the  23d  of  November,  1877.  It  pro- 
duced profound  astonishment  throughout  the  United  States,  accom- 
panied by  no  small  degree  of  indignation.  Rumors  in  regard  to  the 
mode  of  Mr.  Delfosse's  appointment  became  frequent  during  the 
ensuing  winter;  and  on  the  llth  of  March,  1878,  Mr.  Blaine  of 
Maine  submitted  a  resolution  in  the  Senate,  requesting  the  Presi- 
dent, if  not  incompatible  with  the  interests  of  the  public  service,  to 
transmit  the  correspondence  which  preceded  the  selection  of  Mr. 
Delfosse  as  third  Commissioner.  It  was  promptly  given  to  the 
Senate  and  to  the  public,  and  increased  to  a  great  degree  the  popu- 
lar dissatisfaction  with  the  result.  For  the  first  time  Mr.  Delfosse 
became  acquainted  with  the  serious  objections  made  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  to  his  appointment.  It  is  probable  that 


AMOUNT    OF    HALIFAX    AWARD.  633 

if  his  government  had  been  advised  of  the  facts  Mr.  Delfosse  would 
never  have  been  subjected  to  the  embarrassment  and  mortification 
of  serving  on  the  Commission. 

In  transmitting  to  Congress  the  papers  relating  to  the  award,  on 
the  17th  of  May  (1878),  President  Hayes  recommended  the  "appro- 
priation of  the  necessary  sum,  with  such  discretion  in  the  Executive 
Government,  in  regard  to  the  payment,  as  in  the  wisdom  of  Congress 
the  public  interests  may  seem  to  require"  The  whole  matter  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  and  on  the  28th 
of  May  the  chairman  of  the  Committee,  Hon.  Hannibal  Hamlin, 
made  an  elaborate  report,  reviewing  the  history  of  the  transaction 
in  a  very  thorough  and  impartial  manner.  He  also  submitted  a  reso- 
lution, declaring  that  "the  views  and  recommendations  embraced 
in  the  report  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  touch- 
ing the  award  made  by  the  Fishery  Commission  at  Halifax,  are 
hereby  approved."  The  Committee,  at  the  same  time,  reported 
a  bill  appropriating  five  and  a  half  millions  for  the  payment  of  the 
award. 

The  report  of  the  Committee  recommended  that  "  the  President 
of  the  United  States  should  be  authorized  to  pay  the  award,  if,  after 
correspondence  with  the  Government  of  Great  Britain,  he  shall, 
without  further  communication  with  Congress,  deem  that  such  pay- 
ment shall  be  demanded  by  the  honor  and  good  faith  of  the  Nation ; 
and  if  in  pursuance  of  that  conclusion  the  award  shall  be  paid,  the 
President  shall,  as  soon  as  may  be  convenient  thereafter,  lay  the 
correspondence  with  the  British  Government  relating  thereto  before 
Congress."  Mr.  Hamlin  pointed  out  in  his  report  the  possibility 
that  "the  Halifax  Commission  had  proceeded  ultra  vires  and  taken 
into  consideration  certain  elements  not  fairly  in  the  case  submitted." 
"  When  the  King  of  the  Netherlands,"  said  the  report,  "  was  selected 
as  umpire  in  1827  to  settle  the  North-eastern  Boundary  dispute 
between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  his  award  was  set  aside 
on  the  plain  and  justifiable  ground  stated  by  Mr.  Clay,  then  Secre- 
tary of  State,  that  his  Majesty  had  recommended  a  mode  of  settle- 
ment outside  of  the  facts  and  terms  of  submission."  Had  Mr. 
Delfosse  and  Mr.  Gait  proceeded  in  a  similar  manner  ? 

Attention  was  also  called  by  Mr.  Hamlin  to  the  fact  that  the 
award  was  made  only  by  two  Commissioners,  the  third  dissenting. 
In  the  two  other  Commissions  organized  under  the  Treaty  of  Wash- 
ington it  was  specifically  provided  that  a  majority  of  the  Commis- 


634  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

sioners  should  decide,  but  in  constituting  the  Fishery  Commission 
no  such  provision  was  made.  What  was  the  fair  inference  ?  Red- 
mond on  arbitrations  and  awards,  Francis  Russell,  and  other  eminent 
English  authorities,  lay  down  the  doctrine  that  "  on  a  reference  to 
several  arbitrators,  with  no  provision  that  less  than  all  shall  make 
an  award,  each  must  act,  and  all  must  act  together ;  and  every  stage 
of  the  proceedings  must  be  in  the  presence  of  all,  and  the  award 
must  be  signed  by  all  at  the  same  time."  The  London  Times,  July 
6,  1877,  just  before  the  Commission  was  organized  at  Halifax,  had 
asserted  that  "  on  every  point  that  comes  before  the  Fishery  Com- 
mission for  decision,  the  unanimous  consent  of  all  its  members  is, 
by  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  necessary  before  an  authoritative  verdict 
can  be  given."  And  Mr.  Blake,  the  Minister  of  Justice  for  Canada, 
had  declared  in  1875  that  "  the  amount  of  compensation  we  shall 
receive  must  be  the  amount  unanimously  agreed  upon  by  the 
Commissioners." 

Mr.  Hamlin,  representing  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations, 
was  careful  not  to  put  the  United  States  in  the  attitude  of  repudi- 
ating the  award.  "However  much,"  said  the  report,  "we  may 
regard  the  award  made  at  Halifax  as  excessively  exorbitant  and  pos- 
sibly beyond  the  legal  and  proper  power  of  those  making  it,  your 
Committee  would  not  recommend  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  disregard  it,  if  the  Government  of  her  Britannic  Majesty,  after 
a  full  review  of  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case,  shall  con- 
clude and  declare  the  award  to  be  lawfully  and  honorably  due."  It 
was  aptly  added  that  "  the  intelligence  and  virtue  of  British  states- 
men cannot  fail  to  suggest  that  arbitration  can  only  be  retained  as  a 
fixed  mode  of  adjusting  international  disputes  by  demonstrating  its 
efficiency  as  a  method  of  securing  mutual  justice  and  thus  assuring 
that  mutual  content  without  which  awards  and  verdicts  are  powerful 
only  for  mischief." 

To  the  resolution  approving  the  report  made  by  Mr.  Hamlin,  Mr. 
Edmunds  offered  an  amendment,  declaring  that  "  Articles  XVIII.  and 
XXI.  of  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  con- 
cluded on  the  8th  of  May,  1871  (remitting  the  duties  on  fish  and 
fish-oil),  ought  to  be  terminated  at  the  earliest  period  consistent 
with  the  provisions  of  Article  XXXIII.  of  the  same  treaty  (providing 
that  the  remission  should  be  for  ten  years)."  A  brief  debate  ensued 
and  the  resolution,  with  Mr.  Edmunds's  amendment,  was  adopted  by 
a  large  majority.  The  bill  reported  by  the  committee,  appropriating 


EVARTS-SALISBURY  CORRESPONDENCE.  635 

the  five  and  a  half  million  dollars,  was  then  passed  without  objec- 
tion. Congress  had  now  done  with  the  subject,  and  its  final  disposi- 
tion was  left  to  the  Executive  Department  of  the  Government.1 

Responding  to  the  judgment  of  Congress,  Mr.  Evarts,  then  Secre- 
tary of  State,  presented  the  whole  argument  against  the  award  in  a 
dispatch  of  September  27,  1878.  He  was  compelled  to  believe  from 
the  magnitude  of  the  award,  that  considerations  foreign  to  the  ques- 
tion submitted  had  been  brought  before  the  Arbitration.  He  called 
the  attention  of  Lord  Salisbury,  who  had  become  Foreign  Secretary 
in  the  second  Disraeli  Cabinet,  that  five  fishing-seasons  under  the 
treaty  had  elapsed  before  the  Halifax  Commission  was  organized, 
and  that  therefore  we  had  actual  statistics  showing  the  value  of 
the  privilege  conceded  to  the  United  States,  instead  of  the  conjectu- 
ral estimates  which  had  been  used  when  the  treaty  was  made.  By 
these  actual  and  careful  statistics,  it  had  been  found  that  from  the 
inshore  fishing  American  fishermen  had  in  the  five  seasons  secured 
125,961  barrels  of  mackerel,  —  worth  when  packed  and  ready  for 
exportation  $3.75  per  barrel,  and  in  the  aggregate  $472,353.  But  in 
this  price,  as  Mr.  Evarts  explained,  "are  included  the  barrel,  the 
salt,  the  expense  of  catching,  curing  and  packing,  which  must  all  be 
deducted  before  the  profit  is  realized.  Upon  the  evidence,  a  dollar 
a  barrel  would  be  an  excessive  estimate  of  net  profit,  and  this  would 
give  to  our  fishermen,  for  the  five  seasons  of  the  fishery  privilege, 
but  $25,000  a  year,  or  for  the  whole  twelve  years  but  $300,000." 

Not  content  to  rest  his  argument  upon  this  statement  alone,  Mr. 
Evarts  called  Lord  Salisbury's  attention  to  the  fact  that  if  the 
mackerel  be  estimated  at  the  most  extravagant  price  of  $10  per  bar- 
rel, and  half  the  sum  estimated  as  net  profit,  the  total  value  of  the 
fishery  would  be  but  $125,000  per  annum,  or  $1,500,000  for  the  twelve 
years.  The  only  problem  therefore,  left  for  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  to  consider,  was  whether  in  exchange  for  the  $5,500,- 

1  The  following  is  the  text  of  the  bill  appropriating  the  amount  necessary  to  pay  the 
award :  — 

"  That  the  sum  of  five  and  one-half  million  dollars,  in  gold  coin,  be,  and  the  same  is 
hereby,  appropriated,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  and 
placed  under  the  direction  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  with  which  to  pay  to 
the  Government  of  her  Britannic  Majesty  the  amount  awarded  by  the  fisheries  commis- 
sion, lately  assembled  at  Halifax  in  pursuance  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  if,  after  cor- 
respondence with  the  British  Government  on  the  subject  of  the  conformity  of  the  award 
to  the  requirements  of  the  treaty  and  to  the  terms  of  the  question  thereby  submitted  to 
the  commission,  the  President  shall  deem  it  his  duty  to  make  the  payment  without  fur- 
ther communication  with  Congress." 


636  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

000  awarded  by  Mr.  Delfosse,  and  the  $4,200,000  of  duties  remitted 
to  Canada  on  fish  and  fish-oil,  we  were  actually  to  receive  a  total  of 
$300,000  or  $1,500,000?  In  other  words  was  the  loss  to  the  United 
States  by  the  transaction  to  be  $9,400,000  or  $8,200,000? 

Lord  Salisbury,  in  his  reply,  quoted  eminent  American  publi- 
cists to  show  that  a  majority  of  the  Commission  was  authorized  to 
make  an  award.  He  maintained  that  the  rule  in  international  arbi- 
trations empowered  the  majority  of  the  arbitrators  to  decide;  but 
if  that  be  a  generally  recognized  rule,  his  Lordship  should  have  ex- 
plained why  in  the  case  of  the  Geneva  and  Washington  arbitrations, 
(provided  for  in  the  same  treaty  with  the  Halifax  arbitration),  the 
right  of  the  majority  to  decide  was  specifically  provided  for,  and  was 
regarded  in  at  least  one  case  as  a  concession  by  the  High  Commis- 
sioners of  Great  Britain.  His  Lordship  declined  to  follow  Mr.  Evarts 
"into  the  details  of  his  argument."  He  maintained  that  "these 
very  matters  were  examined  at  great  length  and  with  conscientious 
minuteness  by  the  Commission  whose  award  is  under  discussion." 
He  admitted,  with  diplomatic  courtesy,  that  "  Mr.  Evarts'  reasoning 
is  powerful,"  but  still  in  his  judgment  "  capable  of  refutation."  He 
did  not,  however,  attempt  to  refute  it,  but  based  his  case  simply  on 
the  ground  that  the  award  gave  the  $5,500,000  to  England.  In  all 
frankness  his  Lordship  should  have  said  that  Mr.  Delfosse,  in  his 
grace  and  benevolence,  gave  the  large  sum  to  England. 

Secretary  Evarts,  with  great  propriety,  declined  to  press  the 
points  submitted  in  his  dispatch.  His  only  design  was  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  British  Government  to  the  extraordinary  facts,  and 
leave  to  the  determination  of  that  Government  whether  any  thing 
should  be  done  to  mitigate  the  glaring  and  now  demonstrated  injus- 
tice of  the  award.  "The  Government  of  the  United  States,"  said 
Mr.  Evarts  in  closing  his  dispatch,  "  will  not  attempt  to  press  its  own 
interpretation  of  the  treaty  against  the  deliberate  interpretation  of 
her  Majesty's  Government  to  the  contrary."  He  made  no'  rejoinder 
to  Lord  Salisbury,  and  paid  on  the  day  it  was  due  —  one  year  from 
date  of  award  —  the  amount  adjudged  to  Great  Britain.  Every 
American  felt  that  under  such  circumstances  it  was  better  to  pay 
than  to  be  paid  the  five  and  a  half  millions  of  dollars. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  understand  how  Mr.  Delfosse  was  brought 
to  such  an  extraordinary  conclusion,  and  there  has  been  no  disposi- 
tion in  the  United  States  to  impute  his  action  to  improper  motives. 
The  wrong  was  done  when  he  was  selected  as  third  Commissioner, 


INFLUENCES  SURROUNDING  MR.  DELFOSSE.  637 

and  the  tenacity  with  which  he  was  urged  will  always  require  expla- 
nation from  the  British  Government.  Mr.  Delfosse  had  spent  his  life 
in  the  Diplomatic  service,  was  not  in  any  sense  a  man  of  affairs,  and 
was  profoundly  ignorant  of  the  fishery  question.  From  the  diplo- 
matic point  of  view  he  could  not  understand  that  the  Dominion  of 
Canada  should  open  her  inshore  fisheries  to  such  a  power  as  the 
United  States  without  some  consideration  beyond  that  of  mere  com- 
mercial demand.  Measuring  in  his  own  mind  the  value  of  such  a 
right  on  the  restricted  coast  of  his  own  country,  it  was  natural  that 
he  should  multiply  it  somewhat  in  the  proportion  of  the  vastly 
extended  coast  of  British  America,  now  thrown  open  to  the  United 
States.  He  was  further  influenced  by  the  claim  shrewdly  put 
forward  by  the  British  agent  and  British  attorneys  that  the  inshore 
fisheries  were  worth  112,000,000  to  the  United  States  for  the  period 
of  the  treaty,  and  the  Newfoundland  fisheries  $2,280,000  in  addition. 
It  is  difficult  to  speak  of  these  pretensions  with  respect,  or  to  treat 
them  as  honestly  put  forward  by  men  to  whom  all  the  facts  were 
familiar. 

Above  all,  Mr.  Delfosse  knew  that  the  Belgian  sovereign,  whose 
favor  was  his  own  fortune,  would  earnestly  desire  a  triumph  for  the 
British  cause.  Both  sides  made  strong  representations,  and  pre- 
sented statistics  and  tabular  statements  and  elaborate  comparisons, 
which  he  did  not  analyze,  and  perhaps  did  not  understand.  Eng- 
land, he  knew,  had  been  mulcted  in  fifteen  and  a  half  millions  in 
the  Geneva  award,  and  the  San  Juan  controversy  had  been  decided 
against  her  by  the  Emperor  of  Germany.  With  the  connections 
and  surroundings  of  Mr.  Delfosse  he  would  have  been  more  than 
human  if  he  had  not  desired  England  to  triumph  in  at  least  one 
of  the  questions  submitted  to  arbitration  under  the  Treaty  of  Wash- 
ington. But  while  these  circumstances  relieve  Mr.  Delfosse  from 
any  imputation  upon  his  personal  or  official  honor,  they  only  render 
more  prominent  and  more  offensive  the  singular  pertinacity  with 
which  the  British  Government  insisted  upon  his  appointment  as  one 
of  the  Commissioners  in  an  arbitration  that  was  originally  designed 
to  be  impartial. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

FORTY-SIXTH  CONORESS.  — EXTRA  SESSIONS.  —  ORGANIZATION  OF  HOUSE. —Or  SENATE. 
—  LEADING  MEN  IN  EACH.  —  DEMOCRATIC  GAIN  IN  INFLUENCE.  —  CONTROL  OF 
BOTH  SENATE  AND  HOUSE. — DEATH  OF  SENATOR  CHANDLER. — QUESTION  OF  CIVIL 
SERVICE  REFORM.  —  THE  PATRONAGE  OF  THE  GOVERNMENT.  —  ITS  ILLEGITIMATE 
INFLUENCE. — THE  QUESTION  OF  CHINESE  LABOR. — LEGISLATION  THEREON. 

THE  last  session  of  the  Forty-fifth  Congress  closed  without  making 
provision  for  the  expenses  of  the  Legislative,  Executive  and 
Judicial  departments,  or  for  the  support  of  the  army.  Differences 
between  the  two  branches  as  to  points  of  independent  legislation 
had  prevented  an  agreement  upon  the  appropriation  bills  for  these 
imperative  needs  of  the  Government.  President  Hayes  therefore 
called  the  Forty-sixth  Congress  to  meet  in  extra  session  on  the  18th 
of  March  (1879).  His  Administration  had  an  exceptional  experience 
in  assembling  Congress  in  extra  session.  In  time  of  profound  peace, 
with  no  exigency  in  the  public  service  except  that  created  by  dis- 
agreement of  Senate  and  House,  he  had  twice  been  compelled  to 
assemble  Congress  in  advance  of  its  regular  day  for  meeting. 

The  House  was  organized  by  the  re-election  of  Mr.  Randall  as 
Speaker.  He  received  143  votes  to  125  for  James  A.  Garfield,  while 
13  members  elected  as  Greenbackers  cast  their  votes  for  Hendrick 
B.  Wright  of  Pennsylvania.  Among  the  most  prominent  of  the  new 
members  were  George  M.  Robeson  from  the  Camden  district  of  New 
Jersey,  who  proved  to  be  as  strong  in  parliamentary  debate  as  he 
was  known  to  be  in  argument  at  the  bar ;  Levi  P.  Morton-  from  one 
of  the  New- York  City  districts,  who  had  all  his  life  been  devoted  to 
business  affairs  and  who  had  achieved  a  high  reputation  in  banking 
and  financial  circles ;  Warner  Miller  from  the  Herkimer  district,  who 
was  extensively  engaged  as  a  manufacturer  and  had  already  acquired 
consideration  by  his  service  in  the  New- York  Legislature ;  Richard 
Crowley  from  the  Niagara  district,  a  well-known  lawyer  in  Western 
New  York. 
—  Henry  H.  Bingham  came  from  one  of  the  Philadelphia  districts 

638 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  HOUSE.  639 

with  an  unusually  good  record  in  the  war,  which  he  entered  as 
lieutenant  in  a  Pennsylvania  regiment  and  left  with  the  rank  of 
brevet  Brigadier-General.  He  served  on  the  staff  of  General  Han- 
cock and  was  wounded  in  three  great  battles.  —  John  S.  Newberry 
was  a  successful  admiralty  lawyer  from  the  Detroit  district. — 
Roswell  G.  Horr,  from  one  of  the  Northern  districts  of  Michigan, 
became  widely  known  as  a  ready  and  efficient  speaker  with  a  quaint 
and  humorous  mode  of  argument. 

—  Thomas  L.  Young  came  from  one  of  the  Cincinnati  districts.     He 
was  a  native  of  Ireland,  a  private  soldier  in  the  Regular  Army  of  the 
United  States  before  the  war,  Colonel  of  an  Ohio  regiment  during 
the  war,  and  was  afterwards  elected  Lieutenant-Governor  of  Ohio  on 
the  ticket  with  Rutherford  B.  Hayes.  —  Frank  H.  Hurd,  an  earnest 
and  consistent  advocate  of  free  trade,  entered  again  from  the  Toledo 
district.  —  A.  J.  Warner,  distinguished  for  his  advocacy  of  silver, 
came  from  the  Marietta  district. 

—  William  D.  Washburn,  a  native  of  Maine  but  long  a  resident  in  the 
North-West,  came  as  the  representative  of  the  Minneapolis  district. 
Of  seven  brothers,  reared  on  a  Maine  farm,  he  was  the  fourth  who 
had  sat  in  the  House  of  Representatives.     Israel  Washburn  repre- 
sented Maine,  Elihu  B.  Washburne  represented  Illinois,  Cadwalader 
C.    Washburne  represented  Wisconsin.     They  were   descended  of 
sturdy  stock   and   inherited  the   ability  and   manly  characteristics 
which  had  received  consideration  in  four  different  States. 

The  Democratic  ascendency  in  the  South  had  become  so  complete 
that  out  of  one  hundred  and  six  Congressional  districts  the  opposi- 
tion had  only  been  able  to  elect  four  representatives,  —  Leonidas  C. 
Houck  from  East  Tennessee,  Daniel  L.  Russell  of  North  Carolina, 
Milton  G.  Urner  of  Maryland,  and  Joseph  Jorgensen  of  Virginia. 
These  were  the  few  survivors  in  a  contest  waged  for  the  extermina- 
tion of  the  Republican  party  in  the  South. 


Among  the  new  senators  were  some  well-known  public  men :  — 
John  A.  Logan  took  his  seat  as  the  successor  of  Governor  Oglesby. 
He  had  been  absent  from  the  Senate  two  years,  and  returned  with 
the  renewed  endorsement  of  the  great  State  which  he  had  faithfully 
served  in  war  and  in  peace.  He  had  been  in  Congress  before  the 
rebellion.  He  was  first  a  candidate  for  the  House  of  Representatives 


640  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

in  the  year  of  the  famous  contest  between  Lincoln  and  Douglas, 
and  was  a  partisan  supporter  and  personal  friend  of  the  latter.  He 
changed  his  political  relations  when  he  found  himself  summoned  to 
the  field  in  defense  of  the  Union.  General  Logan's  services  at  that 
time  were  peculiarly  important.  He  lived  in  that  section  of  Illinois 
whose  inhabitants  were  mainly  people  of  Southern  blood,  and  whose 
natural  sympathies  might  have  led  them  into  mischievous  ways  but 
for  his  stimulating  example  and  efforts.  The  Missouri  border  was 
near  them  on  the  one  side,  the  Kentucky  border  on  another,  and 
if  the  Southern  Illinoisans  had  been  betrayed,  in  any  degree,  into 
a  disloyal  course  the  military  operations  of  the  Government  in  that 
section  would  have  been  greatly  embarrassed.  General  Logan  did 
not  escape  without  misrepresentation  at  that  critical  time,  but  the 
impartial  judgment  of  his  countrymen  has  long  since  vindicated  his 
course  as  one  of  exceptional  courage  and  devoted  patriotism.  His 
military  career  was  brilliant  and  successful,  and  his  subsequent 
course  in  Congress  enlarged  his  reputation.  Indeed  no  man  in  the 
country  has  combined  a  military  and  legislative  career  with  the  de- 
gree of  success  in  both  which  General  Logan  has  attained. 

—  George  H.  Pendleton,  who  had  served  in   Congress   during  the 
administrations  of  Mr.  Buchanan  and  Mr.  Lincoln,  retired  tempo- 
rarily from  political  life  after  his  unsuccessful  canvass  for  the  Vice- 
Presidency  on  the  ticket  with  General  McClellan  in  1864.   He  was  the 
Democratic  candidate  for  Governor  of  Ohio  in  1869,  against  Ruther- 
ford B.  Hayes,  and  now  returned  to  the  Senate  as.  the  successor  of 
Stanley  Matthews.     He  entered  with  the  advantage  of  a  long  career 
in  the  House,  in  which,  as  the  leader  of  the  minority  during  the  war, 
he  had  sustained  himself  with  tact  and  ability. 

—  Nathaniel  P.  Hill,  a  native  of  New  York,  a  graduate  of  Brown  Uni- 
versity and  afterwards  professor  of  chemistry  in  the  same  institution, 
a  student  of  metallurgy  at  the  best  schools  in  Europe,  became  a  resi- 
dent of  Colorado  as  manager  of  a  smelting  company,  in  186L    He  soon 
acquired  an  influential  position  in  that  new  and  enterprising  State, 
and  now  took  his  seat  in  the  Senate  as  the  successor  of  Mr.  Chaffee. 

—  Henry  W.  Blair,  already  well  known  by  his  service  in  the  House, 
now  entered  the  Senate ;  and  Orville  H.  Platt  of  Connecticut,  who 
had  never  served  in  Congress,  came  as  the  successor  of  Mr.  Barnum. 

Southern  men  of  note  were  rapidly  filling  the  Democratic  side  of 
the  Senate  chamber :  Wade  Hampton  had  taken  a  very  conspicuous 
part  in  the  Rebellion,  had  assisted  in  its  beginning  when  South  Caro- 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  SENATE.  641 

lina  was  hurried  out  of  the  Union.  He  immediately  joined  the  Con- 
federate Army,  where  he  remained  in  high  command  until  the  close 
of  the  war,  after  which  he  took  active  part  in  the  politics  of  his  State 
and  was  elected  to  the  Governorship  in  1876.  An  extreme  Southern 
man  in  his  political  views,  he  was  in  all  private  relations  kindly  and 
generous.  His  grandfather  Wade  Hampton  was  engaged  in  two 
wars  for  the  Union  which  the  grandson  fought  to  destroy.  He  was 
with  the  men  of  Sumter  and  Marion  during  the  Revolutionary 
war,  and  was  a  major-general  in  the  war  of  1812,  commanding  in 
Northern  New  York.  At  his  death  in  1835  he  was  believed  to  be  the 
largest  slave-holder  in  the  United  States,  owning  it  was  said  three 
thousand  slaves. 

—  George  G.  Vest,  a  native  of  Kentucky,  was  one  of  the  few  gen- 
tlemen  who   had   occupied   the   somewhat    anomalous    position   of 
representing  in   the    Confederate  Congress  a   State   that  had  not 
seceded.     He  was  a  member  of  both  House  and  Senate  at  Rich- 
mond.    He  was  a  good  debater,  of  what  is  known  as  the  Southern 
type ;   logical,  direct,  forcible,  withal  showing  certain  peculiarities 
of  style  and  phrase  characteristic  of  graduates  from  Transylvania 
University. 

—  Zebulon  B.  Vance  was  born  and  reared  in  Buncombe  County, 
North  Carolina.     He  belonged  originally  to  that  conservative  class 
of  Southern  Whigs  whose  devotion  to  the  Union  was  considered 
steadfast   and  immovable.     He  was   a   representative   in   Congress 
during  Mr.  Buchanan's  Administration,  adhering  to  the  remnant  of 
the  Whig  party,  which  went  under  the  name  of  "  American  "  in  the 
South.     He  joined  the  Confederate  Army  immediately  after  the  war 
began,  and  a  year  later  was  elected  Governor  of  his  State.    He  became 
extensively  known  through  the  North,  first  by  the  rumors  of  his  dis- 
agreements with  Jefferson  Davis  during  the  war,  and  afterwards  by 
Horace  Greeley's  repeated  reference,  in  the  campaign  of  1872,  to 
his  "  political  disabilities  "  as  an  illustration  of  Republican  bigotry. 
He  has  been  noted  as  a  stump-speaker  and  as  an  advocate.     Since 
the  war  he  has  been  so  pronounced  a  partisan  as  in  some  degree  to 
lessen  the  genial  humor  which  had  always  been  one  of  his  leading 
personal  traits. 

—  John  S.  Williams  of  Kentucky  succeeded  Thomas  C.  McCreery 
in  the  Senate.     He  had  gained  much  credit  when  only  twenty-seven 
years  of  age  as  Colonel  of  a  Kentucky  regiment  in  the  Mexican  war ; 
but  when  the  rebellion  broke  out  he  joined  the  Confederates  and 

VOL.  II.  41 


642  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

served  as  a  Brigadier-General  in  the  army  of  General  Joseph  E. 
Johnston.  It  was  said  of  him,  as  of  many  other  Southern  men  of 
character  and  bravery,  that  they  had  gallantly  borne  the  flag  of  the 
Union  in  foreign  lands  and  the  flag  of  Disunion  at  home.  The  genial 
nature  of  General  Williams  won  for  him  in  Congress  many  friends 
beyond  the  line  of  his  own  party. 

Mr.  Chandler  cf  Michigan  succeeded  Mr.  Delano  as  Secretary 
of  the  Interior  in  the  Cabinet  of  President  Grant  in  the  autumn  of 
1875,  a  few  rronths  after  his  retirement  from  the  Senate.  He  re- 
turned to  the  Senate  in  less  than  two  years  from  the  close  of  Presi- 
dent Grant's  Administration.  Mr.  Christian cy  resigned  to  accept 
the  mission  to  Peru,  and  Mr.  Chandler  resumed  his  old  seat  on  the 
22d  cf  February,  1879.  He  exhibited  his  full  strength,  physically 
and  mentally,  taking  active  part  at  once  in  the  debates,  and  in  the 
extra  session  of  March,  1879,  assuming  to  a  large  extent  the  lead. 
In  the  long  discussion  on  the  Army  Bill  he  made  a  brief  speech, 
which  for  force  and  point  excelled  any  of  his  previous  efforts.  In 
the  campaigns  of  the  ensuing  summer  -  and  autumn  he  was  invited 
to  almost  every  Northern  State,  and  exerted  himself  for  too  long  a 
period.  He  died  suddenly  at  Chicago  on  the  night  of  November  1, 
after  having  addressed  a  vast  audience  in  the  evening.  He  had 
nearly  completed  his  sixty-sixth  year,  and  was  apparently  in  the 
vigor  of  life.  His  active  political  career  embraced  about  twenty- 
five  years,  and  was  added  to  a  business  life  of  unusual  industry  and 
prosperity.  The  appreciation  of  his  public  character  and  the  strong 
attachment  of  his  personal  friends  were  shown  in  the  eulogies  pro- 
nounced in  both  Senate  and  House.  At  the  moment  of  his  death 
Mr.  Chandler  had  no  doubt  the  most  commanding  political  position 
he  ever  held.  He  was  a  man  of  strong  intellect,  strong  will,  and 
rugged  integrity. 

For  the  first  time  since  the  Congress  that  was  chosen  with  Mr. 
Buchanan  in  1856,  the  Democratic  party  was  in  control  of  both 
branches.  In  the  House,  with  their  Greenback  allies,  they  had 
more  than  thirty  majority ;  in  the  Senate  they  had  six.  But  under 
a  Republican  President  they  were  able  to  do  little  more  than  they 
had  already  effected  with  their  control  of  the  House.  With  one 
branch  they  could  hold  in  check  any  legislation  to  which  they  were 
opposed,  and  even  with  the  control  of  both  branches,  if  they  fell 
short  of  two-thirds  in  either  they  could  be  checked  in  any  legislation 
which  was  in  conflict  with  the  Constitutional  views  and  opinions  of 


SOUTHERN  INFLUENCE  IN  CONGRESS.  643 

the  President.  There  was,  however,  a  certain  line  of  legislation  to 
which  the  mass  of  Republicans  might  be  opposed,  and  which  might 
at  the  same  time  harmonize  with  the  conservative  views  of  the 
President.  And  this  they  could  accomplish. 

The  main  point  of  difference  which  had  caused  the  failure  of  the 
Army  Bill  in  the  previous  Congress  was  an  amendment  insisted  upon 
by  the  Democratic  majority  in  the  House  concerning  "  the  use  of  troops 
at  the  polls,"  as  the  issue  was  popularly  termed.  It  would  be  unjust 
to  the  Republicans  to  say  that  they  demanded  military  aid  with  the 
remotest  intention  of  controlling  any  man's  vote.  It  was  solely  with 
the  purpose  of  preventing  votes  from  being  controlled,  and  especially 
of  preventing  voters  from  being  driven  by  violence  from  the  polls. 
But  as  has  been  already  set  forth  in  these  pages,  public  opinion  in  the 
United  States  is  hostile  to  any  thing  that  even  in  appearance  indi- 
cates a  Government  control  at  elections,  and  most  of  all  a  control  by 
the  use  of  the  military  arm.  The  majority  of  Representatives  seemed 
to  prefer  that  voters  by  the  thousand  should  be  deprived  by  violence 
of  the  right  of  suffrage,  rather  than  that  their  rights  should  be  pro- 
tected by  even  the  semblance  of  National  authority  present  in  the 
person  of  a  soldier. 

It  was  demonstrated  in  the  debate  that  it  was  only  the  semblance 
of  National  authority  which  was  present  in  the  South.  The  number 
of  troops  scattered  at  various  points  through  the  Southern  States 
was  not  so  large  as  the  number  of  troops  in  the  Northern  States,  and, 
as  was  readily  shown,  did  not  amount  on  an  average  to  one  soldier 
in  each  county  of  the  States  that  had  been  in  rebellion.  But  this 
fact  seemed  to  have  no  weight ;  and  the  Democrats,  having  a  majority 
in  both  Senate  and  House,  now  appended  to  the  Army  Appropria- 
tion Bill  the  amendment  upon  which  the  House  had  insisted  the 
previous  session :  "  that  no  money  appropriated  in  this  act  is  appro- 
priated or  shall  be  paid  for  the  subsistence,  equipment,  transporta- 
tion or  compensation  of  any  portion  of  the  Army  of  the  United 
States  to  be  used  as  a  police  force  to  keep  peace  at  the  polls  at  any 
election  held  within  any  State."  As  this  enactment  was  in  general 
harmony  with  the  Southern  policy  indicated  by  President  Hayes 
upon  his  inauguration,  he  approved  the  bill ;  and  the  elections  in 
several  of  the  Southern  States  were  thenceforth  left,  not  to  the 
majority  of  the  voters,  but  to  the  party  which  had  the  hardihood 
and  the  physical  resources  to  decree  any  desired  result.  But  it  was 
well  known  to  all  familiar  with  political  struggles  in  the  South  that 


644  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

the  white  men  were  not  required  to  use  force  after  the  protection  of 
the  National  Government  was  withdrawn.  Colored  voters  were  not 
equal  to  the  physical  contest  necessary  to  assert  their  civil  rights,  and 
thenceforward  personal  outrages  in  large  degree  ceased.  The  peace 
which  followed  was  the  peace  of  forced  submission  and  not  the  peace 
of  contentment.  Even  that  form  of  peace  was  occasionally  broken 
by  startling  assassinations  for  the  purpose  of  monition  and  discipline 
to  the  colored  race. 


The  reform  of  the  Civil  Service  of  the  National  Government 
occupied  a  considerable  share  of  public  attention  during  the  ad- 
ministration of  President  Grant  and  was  still  further  advanced 
under  President  Hayes.  The  causes  which  led  to  the  necessity  of 
reform  are  more  easily  determined  than  the  measures  which  will 
effect  a  cure  of  admitted  evils.  When  the  Federal  Government  was 
originally  organized,  the  President  and  Vice-President,  Senators  and 
Representatives,  were  specifically  limited  in  their  term  of  service. 
The  Federal  judges  were  appointed  for  life.  All  other  officers  were 
appointed  without  any  limit  as  to  time,  but,  according  to  the  decision 
of  Congress,  were  removable  at  pleasure  by  the  Executive.  During 
the  administrations  of  General  Washington  and  John  Adams,  covering 
the  first  twelve  years  of  the  Federal  Government,  there  were  practi- 
cally no  removals  at  all.  Partisan  spirit  was  developed  in  the  con- 
test of  1800  and  the  change  of  public  opinion  installed  Mr.  Jefferson 
as  President. 

There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  Mr.  Jefferson's  personal  views 
in  regard  to  removals  from  office  were  as  conservative  as  those  of 
his  two  predecessors,  but  he  was  beset  for  place  in  an  extraordinary 
manner  by  the  hosts  of  eager  applicants  who  claimed  to  have  contrib- 
uted to  his  triumph  over  John  Adams,  and  who,  like  their  successors 
in  the  later  days  of  the  Republic,  demanded  their  reward.  '  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son, entertaining  the  belief  that  it  was  not  fair  that  all  the  offices 
should  be  held  by  the  Federalists,  began  a  series  of  removals.  There 
was  great  outcry  against  this  course  by  conservative  men,  who  were 
averse  to  the  removal  of  competent  and  faithful  public  servants; 
and  before  Mr.  Jefferson  had  proceeded  far  in  his  scheme  of  equaliza- 
tion it  became  widely  known,  through  a  letter  which  he  had  written 
in  defense  of  his  course  in  removing  the  Collector  of  Customs  at  New 
Haven,  that  he  was  intending  to  remove  only  a  sufficient  number 


THE  TENURE  OF  OFFICE  AFTER  1820.  645 

to  give  his  own  supporters  a  fair  proportion  of  places  under  the 
Government. 

As  soon  as  this  design  was  perceived  it  seems  to  have  occurred 
to  the  office-holders,  most  of  whom  had  taken  no  decided  stand 
upon  political  issues,  that  they  could  effect  the  partition  more  readily 
than  Mr.  Jefferson,  by  simply  avowing  themselves  to  be  members  of 
the  party  that  had  elected  him.  There  were  certainly  many  instances 
of  political  conversion  among  the  office-holders  of  a  character  which 
would  to-day  subject  the  incumbents  of  Federal  place  to  personal 
derision  and  public  contempt.  But  the  effect  was  undoubted ;  for 
between  the  clamor  of  those  opposed  to  the  system  of  removal  and 
the  ready  transfer  of  political  allegiance  on  the  part  of  those  already  in 
place,  Mr.  Jefferson  abandoned  the  whole  effort  to  change  the  public 
service  after  the  removal  of  forty-seven  officers.  Thenceforward,  under 
his  administration  and  under  the  administrations  of  Mr.  Madison  and 
Mr.  Monroe,  removals  were  so  few  as  scarcely  to  be  noted,  and  were 
made  only  upon  the  proof  or  the  presumption  of  a  justifying  cause. 

In  1820  a  change  was  wrought  which  ultimately  affected,  to  a 
serious  extent,  the  tenure  of  office  under  the  General  Government. 
Thirty-one  years  had  passed  since  the  Constitution  was  adopted,  and 
during  that  whole  period  there  had  only  been  some  sixty-five  re- 
movals from  office.  It  was  inevitable,  therefore,  that  a  considerable 
proportion  of  the  incumbents  had  by  reason  of  age  become  some- 
what unfit  for  the  discharge  of  their  duties.  Many  of  them  were 
Revolutionary  officers  and  soldiers,  the  youngest  of  whom  must  have 
been  verging  upon  threescore  and  ten.  No  provision  had  yet  been 
made  for  retiring  disabled  officers  of  the  army,  and  pensioning  the 
civil  list  was  not  even  dreamed  of.  What,  then, 'should  be  done  with 
these  old  men  who  had  been  holding  office  for  so  long  a  period? 
Mr.  Monroe  was  opposed,  on  principle,  to  removals  from  office,  and 
was  too  kindly  disposed  to  disturb  men  who  had  strong  patriotic 
claims,  and  who  had  personal  need  of  the  emoluments  they  were 
receiving. 

As  the  Executive  Department  would  take  no  step  for  relief,  Con- 
gress initiated  action,  and  passed  a  bill  which  Mr.  Monroe  approved 
on  the  15th  of  May,  1820,  declaring  that  "  all  district  attorneys,  col- 
lectors of  customs,  naval  officers  and  surveyors  of  customs,  navy 
agents,  receivers  of  public  monies  for  lands,  registers  of  the  land 
offices,  paymasters  in  the  army,  the  apothecary-general,  the  assistant 
apothecaries-general,  the  commissary -general  of  purchases,  to  be  ap- 


646  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

pointed  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  appointed  for  the 
term  of  four  years,  and  shall  be  removable  from  office  at  pleasure." 
It  was  further  enacted  that  all  commissions  of  these  officers  bearing 
date  prior  to  September  30,  1814,  "shall  cease  and  expire  on  the 
day  of  their  dates  occurring  next  after  the  following  30th  of  Septem- 
ber;" and  others  were  made  to  expire  after  four  years  from  the 
date  thereof. 

The  Cabinet  of  Mr.  Monroe  contained  at  that  time  three  able  men, 
each  ambitious  for  the  Presidency  —  John  Quincy  Adams,  Secretary 
of  State ;  William  H.  Crawford,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury ;  John  C. 
Calhoun,  Secretary  of  War.  As  there  was  much  opposition  to  the 
four-year  law,  the  friends  of  Mr.  Calhoun  and  of  Mr.  Adams  united 
in  imputing  its  authorship  to  Mr.  Crawford,  whose  Department 
included  far  the  largest  share  of  Executive  patronage.  The  accu- 
sation was  openly  made  that  Mr.  Crawford  intended  to  use  the  offices 
of  the  Treasury  Department  to  promote  his  political  fortunes ;  and 
the  friends  of  Mr.  Calhoun  and  of  Mr.  Adams,  seeing  that  their 
chiefs  had  no  corresponding  number  of  offices  to  dispose  of,  found 
their  resource  in  virtuous  denunciation  of  the  selfish  schemes  pro- 
jected by  Mr.  Crawford.  But  there  appears  to  have  been  no  sub- 
stantial ground  for  the  imputation  —  the  official  registers  of  the 
United  States  showing  that  between  the  date  of  the  Act  and  the  year 
1824  (when  Mr.  Crawford's  candidacy  was  expected  to  ripen)  only 
such  changes  were  made  in  the  offices  of  the  Treasury  Department  as 
might  well  have  been  deemed  necessary  from  causes  of  age  and 
infirmity  already  referred  to.  Besides,  Mr.  Crawford  during  all  the 
period  was  in  <  ill-health,  with  ambition  chastened,  and  strength  con- 
stantly waning. 

President  John  Quincy  Adams,  following  Mr.  Monroe,  maintained 
the  conservative  habit  already  established  as  to  removals,  —  depriving 
very  few  officers  of  their  commissions  during  the  four  years,  of  his 
term,  and  those  only  for  adequate  cause.  With  the  inauguration  of 
General  Jackson  in  1829,  and  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Van  Buren  as 
Secretary  of  State,  the  practice  of  the  Government  was  reversed, 
and  the  system  of  partisan  appointments  and  removals,  familiar  to 
the  present  generation,  was  formally  adopted.  It  became  an  avowed 
political  force  in  those  States  where  the  patronage  of  the  Government 
was  large.  It  had  no  doubt  a  special  and  potential  influence  in  the 
political  affairs  of  New  York  where  the  system  had  its  chief  inspira- 
tion, where  the  "  science "  of  carrying  elections  was  first  devised 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  AND  THE  CIVIL  SERVICE.  647 

and  has  since  been  continuously  improved.  The  system  of  partisan 
removals  was  resisted  by  Mr.  Clay,  Mr.  Calhoun,  Mr.  Webster,  and 
all  the  opponents  of  the  Democratic  party  as  then  organized;  but 
it  steadily  grew,  and  became  the  recognized  rule  under  the  well- 
known  maxim  proclaimed  by  Mr.  Marcy  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  in  1832 :  "  To  the  victors  belong  the  spoils."  In  two  years 
President  Jackson  had  made  ten  times  as  many  removals  as  all  his 
predecessors  had  made  in  forty  years. 

When  the  Whigs  came  into  power  by  the  election  of  1840,  Presi- 
dent Harrison  discussed  the  question  of  patronage  and  its  abuse,  not 
merely  as  tending  to  strengthen  one  political  party  against  the  other, 
but  as  building  up  the  power  of  the  Executive  against  the  Legislative 
Department.  Nevertheless  with  all  the  denunciations  of  the  leaders 
and  the  avowals  of  the  new  President,  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  the 
Whigs  as  a  party  desired  the  dismissal  of  the  office-holders  appointed 
by  Jackson  and  Van  Buren.  From  that  time  onward,  although 
there  was  much  condemnation  of  the  evil  practice  of  removing  good 
officers  for  opinion's  sake,  each  party  as  it  came  into  power  practiced 
it ;  and  prior  to  1860  no  movement  was  made  with  the  distinct  pur- 
pose of  changing  this  feature  of  the  civil  service. 

The  Administration  of  Mr.  Lincoln  was  prevented  by  the  public 
exigencies  from  giving  attention  to  any  other  measures  than  those 
necessary  for  the  preservation  of  the  Union,  and  during  the  war  no 
change  was  made  or  suggested  as  to  the  manner  of  appointment  or 
removal.  The  first  step  towards  it  was  announced  in  Congress  on  the 
20th  day  of  December,  1865,  when  Mr.  Thomas  A.  Jenckes  of  Rhode 
Island  introduced  a  bill  in  the  House  "  to  regulate  the  civil  service 
of  the  United  States."  A  few  months  later,  in  the  same  session, 
B.  Gratz  Brown,  then  a  senator  from  Missouri,  submitted  a  resolution 
for  "  such  change  in  the  civil  service  as  shall  secure  appointments  to 
the  same  after  previous  examination  by  proper  Boards,  and  as  shall 
provide  for  promotions  on  the  score  of  merit  or  seniority."  While 
he  remained  in  Congress  Mr.  Jenckes  annually  renewed  his  proposi- 
tion for  the  regulation  of  the  civil  service,  but  never  secured  the 
enactment  of  any  measure  looking  thereto. 

Neither  of  the  two  great  political  parties  recognized  the  subject  as 
important  enough  to  be  incorporated  in  their  platforms,  until  1872, 
when  the  National  convention  of  the  Republican  party  declared  that 
"any  system  of  the  civil  service  under  which  the  subordinate  positions 
of  the  Government  are  considered  rewards  for  mere  party  zeal  is  fatally 


648  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

demoralizing,  and  we  therefore  demand  a  reform  of  the  system  by 
laws  which  shall  abolish  the  evils  of  patronage  and  make  honesty, 
efficiency,  and  fidelity  essential  qualifications  for  public  positions, 
without  practically  creating  a  life  tenure  of  office."  Thenceforward 
the  subject  found  a  place  in  the  creed  of  the  party.  But  even  prior 
to  this  declaration  of  a  political  convention,  Congress  had  on  the 
3d  of  March,  1871,  appended  a  section  to  an  appropriation  bill, 
authorizing  the  President  uto  prescribe  such  regulations  for  the 
admission  of  persons  into  the  civil  service  of  the  United  States 
as  may  best  promote  efficiency  therein  and  ascertain  the  fitness  of 
each  candidate  in  respect  to  age,  health,  character,  knowledge,  and 
ability  for  the  branch  of  service  in  which  he  seeks  to  enter ;  and  for 
this  purpose  he  may  employ  suitable  persons  to  conduct  such  in- 
quiries, prescribe  their  duties,  and  establish  regulations  for  the  con- 
duct of  persons  who  may  receive  appointments  in  the  civil  service." 

Under  this  authority  President  Grant  organized  a  Commission 
composed  of  Messrs.  George  William  Curtis,  Joseph  Medill,  Alexander 
G.  Cattell,  Davidson  A.  Walker,  E.  B.  Ellicott,  Joseph  H.  Blackfan, 
and  David  C.  Cox.  But  the  Commissioners  soon  found  that  Con- 
gress was  indisposed  to  clothe  them  with  the  requisite  power,  and  that 
public  opinion  did  not  yet  demand  the  reform.  Their  good  inten- 
tions were  therefore  frustrated  and  the  Commission  was  unable  to 
move  forward  to  practical  results.  When  President  Hayes  came  into 
power  he  sought  to  make  reforms  in  the  Civil  Service  by  directing 
competitive  examinations  for  certain  positions,  and  by  forbidding  the 
active  participation  of  office-holders  in  political  campaigns.  The 
defect  of  this  course  was  that  it  rested  upon  an  Executive  order, 
and  did  not  have  the  permanency  of  law.  The  next  President  might 
or  might  not  continue  the  reform,  and  all  that  was  gained  in  the  four 
years  could  at  once  be  abandoned. 

The  settled  judgment  of  discreet  men  in  both  political  parties  is 
adverse  to  the  custom  of  changing  non-political  officers  on  merely 
political  grounds.  They  believe  that  it  impairs  the  efficiency  of  the 
public  service,  lowers  the  standard  of  political  contests,  and  brings 
reproach  upon  the  Government  and  the  people.  So  decided  is  this 
opinion  among  the  great  majority  of  Republicans  and  among  a  very 
considerable  number  of  Democrats,  that  the  former  method  of  ap- 
pointment will  always  meet  with  protest  and  cannot  be  permanently 
re-established.  The  inauguration  of  a  new  system  is  hindered  some- 
what by  an  honest  difference  of  opinion  touching  the  best  methods 


THE  OFFICE-HOLDERS  OF  THE  NATION.  649 

of  selecting  subordinate  officers.  Competitive  examination  is  the 
method  most  warmly  advocated,  and  on  its  face  appears  the  fairest ; 
yet  every  observing  man  knows  that  it  does  not  always  secure  the 
results  most  to  be  desired.  Nothing  is  vouched  for  more  frequently 
by  chiefs  of  Government  bureaus,  than  that  certain  clerks  who  upon 
competitive  examination  would  stand  at  the  head  do  in  point  of 
efficiency  and  usefulness  stand  at  the  foot. 

Another  point  of  difference  is  in  regard  to  the  power  of  instant 
removal,  many  of  the  most  pronounced  reformers  of  the  civil  service 
holding  that  power  to  be  essential,  and  believing  that  it  will  not  be 
abused  so  long  as  the  removing  power  cannot  arbitrarily  appoint  the 
successor.  The  matured  opinion  of  others  is  that  a  tenure  of  office 
definitely  fixed  for  a  term  of  years,  during  which  the  incumbent  can- 
not be  disturbed  except  upon  substantial  written  charges,  will  secure 
a  better  class  of  officials.  They  hold  that  a  subordinate  officer  is 
stripped  of  his  manhood  by  the  consciousness  that  he  may  at  any 
moment  be  removed  at  the  whim  or  caprice  of  some  one  superior  in 
station.  It  too  often  brings  sycophants  into  the  Government  Depart- 
ments, and  excludes  men  of  pride  and  character.  On  the  question 
of  a  life  tenure  there  is  a  similar  division  of  opinion,  which  logically 
follows  the  two  positions  just  stated.  A  life  tenure  cannot  be  adopted 
as  a  rule,  unless  pensions  for  a  civil  list  shall  follow. 

There  is  also  a  belief  with  many  who  are  most  anxious  to  improve 
the  civil  service,  that  the  political  influence  of  Government  patron- 
age, as  applied  to  the  whole  country,  has  been  constantly  misunder- 
stood and  therefore  exaggerated.  At  certain  places  where  the  customs 
and  postal  services  are  large  the  appointing  power  can  no.  doubt  wield 
great  influence.  New- York  City  is  the  strongest  illustration  of  this ; 
and  in  less  degree  a  similar  influence  is  recognized  at  all  the  large 
cities  of  the  country,  especially  the  cities  of  the  seaboard.  But  even 
at  those  points  the  political  influence  of  the  Federal  patronage  is 
far  less  than  that  of  the  municipal  patronage.  During  the  many 
years  that  the  patronage,  both  of  National  and  State  governments, 
has  been  in  the  hands  of  the  Republicans  in  New  York,  the  municipal 
patronage,  steadily  wielded  by  the  Democrats,  has  been  far  more 
potential  in  controlling  elections.  And  throughout  the  United 
States  to-day  the  patronage  controlled  by  municipal  governments 
largely  outweighs  in  the  aggregate  that  of  the  General  and  State 
Governments  at  all  points  where  they  come  in  conflict. 

Towards  the  close  of  President  Hayes'  Administration  the  total 


650  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

number  of  men  connected  with  the  Postal  service  of  the  United 
States  was  about  64,000.  Excluding  mail  contractors  and  mail  mes- 
sengers (whose  service  is  allotted  to  the  lowest  bidder),  the  number 
subject  to  political  influence  was  nearly  49,000.  Of  these,  5,400  had 
salaries  under  $10  per  annum  each;  19,400  others  had  salaries  under 
1100  per  annum  each;  11,500  others  had  salaries  under  $500  per 
annum  each ;  8,100  others  had  salaries  under  $1,000  per  annum  each ; 
3,300  others  had  salaries  under  $1,600  per  annum  each ;  700  others 
had  salaries  under  $2,000  per  annum  each ;  400  others  had  salaries 
under  $3,000  per  annum  each;  84  had  salaries  under  $4,000  per 
annum  each.  Only  14  had  salaries  of  $4,000,  and  2  (the  Postmaster- 
General  and  the  postmaster  at  New  York)  had  $8,000  per  annum 
each.  In  a  majority  of  the  Congressional  districts  of  the  United 
States  there  is  scarcely  any  patronage  known  except  that  of  post- 
masters ;  and  when  more  than  one-half  of  the  total  number  of  Post- 
masters have  salaries  under  $100  per  annum  each,  the  political 
influence  derived  therefrom  cannot  be  great. 

The  remaining  officers  of  the  United  States  were  at  the  same 
period  about  21,000  in  number.  The  mass  of  these  were  in  the  Cus- 
toms and  Internal  Revenue,  and  in  the  various  Executive  Depart- 
ments at  Washington.  They  had  a  larger  average  of  salary  than 
those  engaged  in  the  Postal  Service.  But  one-half  of  the  whole 
number  had  less  than  $1,000  per  annum  each,  and  less  than  one-tenth 
had  salaries  in  excess  of  $2,000  per  annum.  Large  salaries  under 
the  Federal  Government  are  extremely  few  in  number.  Excluding 
the  Federal  Judiciary,  whose  members  are  appointed  for  life,  and 
excluding  senators  and  representatives,  who  are  elected  in  their  re- 
spective States,  there  are  not  more  than  one  hundred  and  fifty 
officials  under  the  National  Government  whose  respective  salaries 
equal  or  exceed  $5,000  per  annum.  The  emolument  cannot  be  re- 
garded as  large  in  a  country  that  opens  so  many  avenues  to  fortune, 
and  the  places  of  this  highest  grade  cannot  be  regarded  as  numerous 
when  (in  1879-81)  there  were  not  more  than  three  of  them  to  every 
million  inhabitants  of  the  Republic. 

While  these  figures  demonstrate  that  the  civil  service  of  the 
United  States  is  moderately  paid,  they  also  demonstrate  that  it  can 
be  more  easily  modified  than  if  the  emoluments  were  greater.  A 
correct  apprehension  of  an  evil  is  the  first  step  towards  its  remedy, 
and  it  is  a  serious  mistake  to  apply  to  the  interior  States  and  the 
rural  districts  the  imputations  and  accusations  which  justly  lie 


IMMIGRATION  OF  CHINESE  LABORERS.  651 

against  the  service  where  of  necessity  a  large  number  of  officers  are 
brought  together.  If  lack  of  zeal  is  found  in  many  sections  of  the 
country  on  this  subject,  it  is  because  the  people  are  never  brought  in 
contact  with  the  evils,  the  abuses,  and  the  corruptions  which  are  well 
known  to  exist  at  points  where  the  patronage  is  large,  and  where 
consequently  many  citizens  are  struggling  for  place. 

No  reform  in  the  civil  service  will  be  valuable  that  does  not 
release  members  of  Congress  from  the  care  and  the  embarrassment 
of  appointments;  and  no  boon  so  great  could  be  conferred  upon 
senators  and  representatives  as  to  relieve  them  from  the  worry,  the 
annoyance,  and  the  responsibility  which  time  and  habit  have  fixed 
upon  them  in  connection  with  the  dispensing  of  patronage,  all  of 
which  belongs  under  the  Constitution  to  the  Executive.  On  the 
other  hand  the  evil  of  which  President  Harrison  spoke  —  the  em- 
ployment of  the  patronage  by  the  Executive  to  influence  legislation 
—  is  far  the  greatest  abuse  to  which  the  civil  service  has  ever  been 
perverted.  To  separate  the  two  great  Departments  of  the  Govern- 
ment, to  keep  each  within  its  own  sphere,  will  be  an  immeasurable 
advantage  and  will  enhance  the  character  and  dignity  of  both.  A 
non-political  service  will  be  secured  when  Congress  shall  be  left  to  its 
legitimate  functions,  when  the  President  shall  not  interfere  therewith 
by  the  use  of  patronage,  and  when  the  responsibility  of  appointments 
shall  rest  solely  with  the  Department  to  which  the  Organic  Law  of 
the  Republic  assigns  it. 


The  rapid  settlement  of  California,  stimulated  as  it  was  by  the 
discovery  of  gold,  attracted  a  considerable  immigration  from  China. 
Industrious  and  patient  laborers,  the  Chinese  were  found  useful  to 
the  pioneers  ;  and  they  received  for  their  work  a  degree  of  compensa- 
tion many  fold  greater  than  they  had  ever  realized  in  their  native 
land,  yet  far  below  the  average  wages  of  an  American  laborer.  The 
treaty  relations  between  China  and  the  UnitecJ.  States,  negotiated  ori- 
ginally by  Caleb  Cushing  in  1844  and  afterwards  by  William  B.  Reed 
in  1858,  did  not  contemplate  the  immigration  into  either  country  of 
citizens  or  subjects  of  the  other.  But  in  1868  the  treaty  negotiated 
by  Mr.  Seward  as  Secretary  of  State  and  Mr.  Burlingame,  acting  as 
Minister  Plenipotentiary  for  China,  recognized  the  right  of  the  citi- 
zens of  either  country  to  visit  or  reside  in  the  other,  specially  exclud- 
ing in  both,  however,  the  right  of  naturalization. 


652  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Upon  Mr.  Seward's  urgent  request  the  following  stipulation  was 
inserted  in  the  Fifth  Article  of  the  Treaty :  "  The  high  contracting 
parties  join  in  reprobating  any  other  than  an  entirely  voluntary  emigra- 
tion. .  .  .  They  consequently  agree  to  pass  laws  making  it  a  penal 
offense  for  citizens  of  the  United  States  or  Chinese  subjects  to  take 
Chinese  subjects  either  to  the  United  States  or  to  any  foreign  coun- 
try, or  for  a  Chinese  subject  or  citizen  of  the  United  States  to  take 
citizens  of  the  United  States  to  China  or  to  any  foreign  country 
without  their  free  and  voluntary  consent  respectively." 

The  treaty  was  negotiated  in  Washington  on  the  28th  of  July, 
1868 ;  but  the  ratifications  were  not  exchanged  until  November,  1869. 
Fear  of  the  evils  that  might  result  from  it  followed  so  closely  upon 
its  conclusion  that  General  Grant,  in  his  first  annual  message  (Decem- 
ber, 1869),  gave  this  warning :  "  I  advise  such  legislation  as  will  for- 
ever preclude  the  enslavement  of  Chinese  upon  our  soil  under  the 
name  of  coolies,  and  also  to  prevent  American  vessels  from  engaging 
in  the  transportation  of  coolies  to  any  country  tolerating  the  system." 
In  his  message  of  December,  1874,  the  President  recurred  to  the 
subject,  informing  Congress  that  "  the  great  proportion  of  the  Chinese 
emigrants  who  come  to  our  shores  do  not  come  voluntarily  to  make  their 
homes  with  us  or  to  make  their  labor  productive  of  general  prosperity, 
but  come  under  contracts  with  head  men  who  own  them  almost  abso- 
lutely. In  a  still  worse  form  does  this  apply  to  Chinese  women.  Hardly 
a  perceptible  percentage  of  them  perform  any  honorable  labor,  but 
they  are  brought  here  for  shameful  purposes,  to  the  disgrace  of  the 
communities  where  they  are  settled  and  to  the  great  demoralization 
of  the  youth  of  those  localities.  If  this  evil  practice  can  be  legislated 
against,  it  will  be  my  pleasure  as  well  as  duty  to  enforce  any  regula- 
tion to  secure  so  desirable  an  end."  In  his  message  of  December, 
1875,  he  again  invited  the  attention  of  Congress  to  "  the  evil  arising 
from  the  importation  of  Chinese  women,  but  few  of  whom  are  brought 
to  our  shores  to  pursue  honorable  or  useful  occupations." 

These  repeated  communications  to  Congress  by  the  President 
were  based  upon  accurate  information  furnished  from  California, 
where  the  condition  of  Chinese  immigrants  had  created  grave  solici- 
tude in  the  minds  of  leading  citizens.  So  serious,  indeed,  had  it 
become  in  the  view  of  the  people  of  California,  that  the  Legislature 
of  that  State,  in  January,  1876,  memorialized  Congress  in  favor  of 
a  modification  of  the  treaty  with  China,  for  the  purpose  of  averting 
the  grave  evils  threatened  from  immigration  —  carried  on  against 


IMMIGRATION  OF  CHINESE  LABORERS.  653 

the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  treaty.  Before  appealing  to  Con- 
gress California  had  attempted  the  accomplishment  of  this  end 
through  laws  of  her  own;  but  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  had  decided  that  the  subject  was  one  within  the  exclusive 
jurisdiction  of  Congress,  and  hence  the  State  could  do  nothing  to 
protect  itselt  against  what  a  large  majority  of  its  citizens  regarded 
as  a  great  danger.  On  the  20th  of  April,  1876,  Mr.  Sargent  of 
California  submitted  a  resolution,  asking  the  Senate  to  "  recommend 
to  the  President  to  cause  negotiations  to  be  entered  upon  with  the 
Chinese  Government  to  effect  such  change  in  the  existing  treaty 
between  the  United  States  and  China  as  will  lawfully  permit  the 
application  of  restrictions  upon  the  great  influx  of  Chinese  subjects 
to  this  country."  A  few  days  later  Mr.  Sargent  addressed  the  Senate 
at  length  on  the  whole  subject  of  Chinese  immigration  in  California, 
and  presented  in  full  detail  the  grievances  of  which  the  people  on 
the  Pacific  Coast  complained. 

The  Senate,  reluctant  to  take  at  once  so  decisive  a  step  as  was 
involved  in  Mr.  Sargent's  resolution,  adopted  a  substitute,  moved 
by  Mr.  Morton  of  Indiana,  directing  that  "  a  committee  of  three  sena- 
tors be  appointed  to  investigate  the  character,  extent,  and  effect  of 
Chinese  immigration  to  this  country."  It  was  afterwards  enlarged 
by  being  changed  into  a  joint  committee  with  the  addition  of  two 
members  from  the  House.  Mr.  Morton  of  Indiana,  Mr.  Sargent  of 
California,  and  Mr.  Cooper  of  Tennessee  were  the  senatorial  mem- 
bers ;  Mr.  Piper  of  California  and  Mr.  Meade  of  New  York  were  the 
Representatives  on  the  joint  committee.  The  Committee  made  a 
thorough  examination  of  the  question,  visiting  California  and  devot- 
ing a  large  part  of  the  Congressional  recess  to  the  duty.  Their  re- 
port embraced  a  vast  amount  of  information  touching  the  Chinese 
immigrants  in  California,  their  religion,  their  superstitions,  their 
habits,  their  relations  to  the  industrial  questions,  to  trade  and  to 
commerce.  A  large  number  of  the  reports  were  printed  but  noth- 
ing further  was  done  for  the  session. 

In  the  succeeding  Congress,  the  first  under  President  Hayes,  the 
subject  was  kept  alive  in  both  branches,  in  the  first  and  second  ses- 
sions, by  the  introduction  of  bills  and  resolutions  ;  but  no  conclusions 
were  reached  until  the  last  session.  Early  in  December  (1878)  a 
bill  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Wren  of  Nevada,  "  to  restrict  the  immi- 
gration of  Chinese  into  the  United  States,"  and  was  referred  to  the 
Committee  011  Education  and  Labor.  It  was  reported  to  the  House 


654  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

by  Mr.  Willis  of  Kentucky  on  the  14th  of  January,  and  on  the  28th, 
after  brief  debate  (maintained  in  the  affirmative  by  the  California 
members  and  in  the  negative  principally  by  Mr.  Dwight  Townsend  of 
New  York),  the  bill  was  passed  by  ayes  155,  noes  72,  considerably 
more  than  two-thirds  voting  in  the  affirmative. 

The  bill  called  forth  prolonged  debate  in  the  Senate.  The  sen- 
ators from  California  (Mr.  Booth  and  Mr.  Sargent),  Mr.  Thurman, 
Mr.  Mitchell  of  Oregon,  and  Mr.  Elaine,  took  the  leading  part  in 
favor  of  the  bill ;  while  Mr.  Hamlin,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  relations,  Mr.  Conkling,  Mr.  Hoar,  arid  Mr.  Stanley  Matthews, 
led  in  opposition.  The  bill  passed  the  Senate  by  ayes  39,  noes  27. 
The  principal  feature  of  the  measure  was  the  prohibiting  of  any 
vessel  from  bringing  more  than  fifteen  Chinese  passengers  to  any  port 
of  the  United  States,  unless  the  vessel  should  be  driven  to  seek  a 
harbor  from  stress  of  weather.  The  bill  further  requested  the  Presi- 
dent to  give  notice  to  the  Emperor  of  China  of  the  abrogation  of 
Articles  V.  and  VI.  of  the  Burlingame  treaty  of  1868.  A  large  por- 
tion of  the  debate  was  devoted  to  this  feature  of  the  bill,  —  the  con- 
tention on  one  side  being  that  fair  notice,  with  an  opportunity  for 
negotiation,  should  be  given  to  the  Chinese  Government,  and  on  the 
other,  that  as  the  treaty  itself  contained  no  provision  for  its  amend- 
ment or  termination,  it  left  the  aggrieved  party  thereto  its  own  choice 
of  the  mode  of  procedure. 

The  argument  against  permitting  Mongolian  immigration  to  con- 
tinue rested  upon  facts  that  were  indisputable.  The  Chinese  had 
been  steadily  arriving  in  California  for  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury, and  they  had  not  in  the  least  degree  become  a  component  part 
of  the  body  politic.  On  the  contrary,  they  were  as  far  from  any 
assimilation  with  the  people  at  the  end  of  that  long  period:  as  they 
were  on  the  first  day  they  appeared  on  the  Pacific  Coast.  They  did 
not  come  with  the  intention  of  remaining.  They  sought  no  perma- 
nent abiding-place.  They  did  not  wish  to  own  the  soil.  They  built 
no  houses.  They  adhered  to  all  their  peculiar  customs  of  dress  and 
manner  and  religious  rite,  took  no  cognizance  of  the  life  and  growth 
of  the  United  States,  and  felt  themselves  to  be  strangers  and  so- 
journers  in  a  country  which  they  wished  to  leave  as  soon  as  they 
could  acquire  the  pitiful  sum  necessary  for  the  needs  of  old  age  in 
their  native  land.  They  were  simply  a  changing,  ever  renewing,  for- 
eign element  in  an  American  State.  They  were  ready  to  work  at  a 
rate  of  wages  upon  which  a  white  man  could  not  subsist  and  support  a 


THE  PRESIDENT  VETOES  THE  CHINESE  BILL.  655 

family.  Theirs  was  in  all  its  aspects  a  servile  labor,  —  one  which  would 
inevitably  degrade  every  workriian  subjected  to  its  competition.  To 
encourage  or  even  to  permit  such  an  immigration,  would  be  to  dedi- 
cate the  rich  Pacific  slope  to  them  alone  and  to  their  employers  —  in 
short,  to  create  a  worse  evil  in  the  remote  West  than  that  which  led 
to  bloody  war  in  the  South.  The  number  at  home  was  great.  The 
cost  of  landing  a  Chinaman  at  San  Francisco  was  less  than  the  cost 
of  carrying  a  white  man  from  New  York  to  the  same  port.  The 
question  stripped  of  all  disguises  and  exaggerations  on  both  sides, 
was  simply  whether  the  labor  element  of  the  vast  territory  on  the 
Pacific  should  be  Mongolian  or  American.  Patriotic  instinct,  the 
sense  of  self-preservation,  the  importance  of  having  a  thorough 
American  sentiment  dominant  on  the  borders  and  outposts  of  the 
Republic,  all  demanded  that  the  Pacific  coast  should  be  preserved 
as  a  field  for  the  American  laborer. 

President  Hayes  vetoed  the  bill  rather  upon  the  ground  of  its 
abrogation  of  a  treaty  without  notice,  than  upon  any  discussion  as  to 
the  effects  of  Chinese  labor.  He  did  not  doubt  that  the  legislation 
of  Congress  would  effectually  supersede  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  but 
he  saw  no  need  for  a  summary  disturbance  of  our  relations  with 
China.  Upon  the  communication  of  the  veto  to  the  House  a  vote 
was  taken  thereon  without  debate  ;  and  upon  the  question  of  passing 
the  bill  despite  the  objections  of  the  President,  the  ayes  were  110,  the 
noes  96.  A  considerable  number  of  gentlemen  who  voted  for  the 
bill  on  its  passage  had  meanwhile  changed  their  views,  and  they  now 
voted  to  sustain  the  veto.  Among  the  most  conspicuous  of  these 
were  Mr.  Aldrich  of  Rhode  Island,  Mr.  Abram  S.  Hewitt  of  New 
York,  Mr.  Blair  of  New  Hampshire,  Mr.  Landers  of  Indiana,  and 
Mr.  Townsend  of  Ohio.  Finding  his  veto  sustained  by  Congress, 
President  Hayes  opened  negotiations  with  the  Chinese  Empire  for  a 
modification  of  the  treaty.  To  that  end  he  dispatched  three  commis- 
sioners to  China,  gentlemen  of  the  highest  intelligence,  adapted  in 
every  way  to  the  important  duties  entrusted  to  them,  —  James  B. 
Angell,  President  of  Michigan  University,  also  appointed  Minister 
Plenipotentiary  to  China,  John  F.  Swift  of  California,  and  William 
Henry  Trescot  of  South  Carolina.  They  negotiated  two  treaties ; 
one  relating  to  the  introduction  of  Chinese  into  the  United  States, 
and  one  relating  to  general  commercial  relations.  Both  treaties  were 
ratified  by  the  Senate,  and  laws  restricting  the  immigration  of 
Chinese  were  subsequently  enacted. 


656  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

Some  of  the  objections  to  the  importation  of  Chinese  on  the  Paci- 
fic coast  apply  to  certain  types  of  laborers  that  have  been  introduced 
in  the  Atlantic  States  from '-Hungary  and  other  European  countries. 
Where  the  labor  is  contracted  for  in  Europe  at  a  low  price  and 
brought  to  the  United  States  to  produce  fabrics  that  are  protected  by 
customs  duties,  a  grave  injustice  is  done  to  the  American  laborer,  and 
an  illegitimate  advantage  is  sought  by  the  manufacturer.  Protective 
duties  should  help  both  labor  and  capital,  and  the  capitalist  who  is 
not  willing  to  share  the  advantage  with  the  laborer  is  doing  much  to 
break  down  the  protective  system.  That  system  would  indeed  receive 
a  fatal  blow  if  it  should  be  demonstrated  that  it  does  not  secure  to 
the  American  laborer  a  better  remuneration  than  the  same  amount 
of  toil  brings  in  Europe.  Happily  the  cases  of  abuse  referred  to  are 
few  in  number  and  have  perhaps  proved  beneficial  in  the  lesson  they 
have  taught  and  the  warning  they  have  evoked.  The  allegation  that 
the  exclusion  of  the  Chinese  is  inhuman  and  unchristian  need  not  be 
considered  in  presence  of  the  fact  that  their  admission  to  the  country 
already  provokes  conflicts  which  the  laws  are  unable  to  restrain.  The 
bitterest  of  all  antagonisms  are  those  which  spring  from  race.  Such 
antagonisms  can  be  prevented  by  wise  foresight  more  easily  than 
they  can  be  cured  after  their  development  is  either  intentionally  or 
carelessly  permitted. 


President  Johnson  made  no  appointments  to  the  Supreme  Bench 
during  his  Administration.  In  1870  President  Grant  appointed 
William  Strong  of  Pennsylvania  and  Joseph  P.  Bradley  of  New 
Jersey  Associate  Justices.  The  former  was  an  addition  to  the 
Court ;  the  latter  succeeded  Robert  C.  Grier.  In  1872  he  appointed 
Ward  Hunt  of  New  York  to  succeed  Samuel  Nelson.  In  1873  he 
appointed  Morrison  R.  Waite  Chief  Justice  to  succeed  Salmon  P. 
Chase,  who  died  in  May  of  that  year.  In  1877  President  Hayes 
appointed  John  M.  Harlan  of  Kentucky  to  succeed  David  Davis,  and 
in  1880  William  Woods  of  Georgia  to  succeed  William  Strong  (re- 
tired). President  Hayes  nominated  Stanley  Matthews  to  succeed 
Noah  Swayne,  but  the  Senate  not  acting  on  the  nomination,  it  was 
renewed  by  President  Garfield,  and  Mr.  Matthews  was  confirmed 
in  1881. 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 

PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  OF  1880.  —  THIRD  TERM  SUGGESTED.  — CHICAGO  CONVENTION. — 
EXCITING  CONTEST.  —  MANY  BALLOTINGS.  —  NOMINATION  OF  GENERAL  GARFIELD. 
—  DEMOCRATIC  CONVENTION.  —  NOMINATION  OF  GENERAL  HANCOCK.  —  THE  CON- 
TEST. —  THE  RESULT.  —  THE  SOLID  SOUTH.  —  ITS  MEANING.  —  ITS  EFFECT.  —  ITS 
END.  — REVIEW  OF  THE  TWENTY  YEARS.  —  PROGRESS  OF  THE  PEOPLE. —MAJESTY 
OF  THE  REPUBLIC. 

DURING  the  latter  years  of  General  Grant's  Presidency  there 
had  been  some  suggestion  of  his  election  for  a  third  term. 
The  proposition,  however,  did  not  meet  with  favor.  Several  State 
Conventions  passed  resolutions  declaring  as  a  matter  of  principle 
that  two  terms  should  be  the  limit  for  any  President.  General  Grant 
himself  discountenanced  the  movement  and  eventually  ended  it  for 
the  canvass  of  1876  by  writing  a  public  letter  announcing  that  he 
was  not  and  would  not  be  a  candidate. 

As  the  election  of  1880  approached,  the  project  was  revived  with 
every  evidence  of  a  more  deliberate  design  and  a  more  determined 
and  persistent  effort  on  the  part  of  its  chief  promoters.  General 
Grant  had  just  finished  a  memorable  tour  around  the  world,  and  had 
everywhere  been  received  with  signal  tributes  of  respect  and  admi- 
ration from  the  rulers  and  people  of  foreign  lands.  The  honors  of  all 
countries  had  stimulated  the  pride  of  his  own  country.  He  re- 
turned to  the  Pacific  shore  and  traversed  the  whole  continent  with 
the  welcome  and  acclaim  of  the  people  whom  he  had  so  greatly 
served  in  war  and  in  peace.  In  the  flush  of  this  popular  enthusiasm 
some  of  the  foremost  men  of  the  Republican  party  united  in  a 
movement  to  make  General  Grant  the  Republican  candidate  for 
President.  A  combination  which  included  Senators  Conkling,  Cam- 
eron and  Logan,  with  their  dominant  personal  influence  and  political 
force,  and  which  aimed  at  the  consolidation  of  the  three  great  States 
of  New  York,  Pennsylvania  and  Illinois,  presented  a  formidable 
front. 

The  leaders  of  the  movement  had  to  a  certain  extent  misappre- 

VOL.  II.  42  657 


658  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

hended  public  opinion.  With  all  the  respect  and  affection  for  the 
illustrious  commander  of  the  Union  armies,  there  was  a  deep  and 
earnest  feeling  against  a  third  term.  This  sentiment  was  not  per- 
sonal to  General  Grant.  The  contentions  which  had  marked  his 
Presidential  career  had  died  away.  The  errors  charged  against  him 
had  been  well-nigh  forgotten,  and  the  real  merits  and  achievements 
of  his  Administration  were  better  appreciated  than  at  an  earlier 
period.  His  absence  from  the  country  for  three  years  had  softened 
whatever  asperities  had  grown  out  of  political  or  factional  differ- 
ences, and  had  quickened  anew  the  grateful  sense  of  his  inestimable 
services  in  the  war.  There  was  no  fear  that  General  Grant  would 
abuse  a  trust,  however  frequently  or  however  long  he  might  be  in- 
vested with  it.  But  the  limit  of  two  terms  had  become  an  unwritten 
part  of  the  code  of  the  Republic,  and  the  people  felt  that  to  dis- 
regard the  principle  might  entail  dangers  which  they  would  not  care 
to  risk.  They  believed  that  the  example  of  Washington  if  now  rein- 
forced by  the  example  of  Grant  would  determine  the  question  for 
the  future,  and  assure  a  regular  and  orderly  change  of  rulers,  which 
is  the  strongest  guarantee  against  the  approach  of  tyranny. 

While  it  was  altogether  probable  that  the  feeling  among  the 
people  against  a  third  term  would  be  stimulated  by  other  aspirants 
to  the  Presidency,  it  was  altogether  impossible  that  they  could  create 
the  feeling.  The  interesting  question  at  issue  was  whether  the  pre- 
cedents of  the  Government  should  be  discredited.  The  National 
Convention  was  to  meet  in  June,  but  as  early  as  February  State 
Conventions  were  called  in  Pennsylvania  and  New  York  to  choose 
delegates,  with  the  intention  of  securing  unanimity  in  favor  of  Gen- 
eral Grant's  nomination.  The  rights  of  Congressional  districts  to 
select  their  own  delegates  had  been  indirectly  affirmed  in  the  National 
Convention  of  1876,  when  the  Unit  Rule  was  overridden  and  the  right 
of  each  individual  delegate  to  cast  his  own  vote  was  established.  But 
against  this  authoritative  monition  the  design  now  was  to  have  the 
States  vote  as  a  unit,  and  accordingly  the  Conventions  in  both  the 
great  States  adopted  instructions  to  that  effect.  The  opposition  to 
this  course  was  very  strong,  the  resolutions  being  carried  in  Pennsyl- 
vania by  a  majority  of  only  twenty,  while  in  New  York,  in  a  total 
vote  of  three  hundred  and  ninety-seven,  the  majority  was  but  thirty- 
eight.  The  delegations  of  both  States  included  men  who  were  known 
to  be  opposed  to  General  Grant's  nomination  and  who  represented 
districts  avowedly  in  accord  with  that  view,  but  it  was  hoped  by  the 


NEW  YORK  AND  PENNSYLVANIA  CONVENTIONS.          659 

leaders  that  the  assumption  of  the  State  Conventions  to  pass  instruc- 
tions might  control  individual  judgment. 

The  action  of  the  Pennsylvania  and  New  York  Conventions  in- 
creased the  public  agitation.  A  strong  conviction  that  their  proceed- 
ings had  been  precipitated  and  did  not  reflect  the  true  judgment  of 
the  Republican  masses  was  rapidly  developed  in  both  States.  In  New 
York  the  Tribune,  the  Albany  Journal,  the  Utica  Herald  and  other 
influential  papers  led  an  earnest  protest  and  opposition.  In  Pennsyl- 
vania the  Philadelphia  Press,  through  the  zeal  of  its  chief  proprietor, 
Mr.  Calvin  Wells,  a  leading  iron-manufacturer  of  Pittsburg,  sec- 
onded by  other  strong  journals,  gave  voice  to  the  decided  and  grow- 
ing public  feeling  against  acquiescing  in  any  attempt  to  prevent  a 
perfectly  free  representation.  In  the  North-West  the  Chicago  Tribune, 
and  in  the  middle  West  the  Cincinnati  Commercial,  not  only  resisted 
the  mode  of  electing  delegates  in  the  large  States  but  directly  and 
vigorously  assailed  the  policy  of  presenting  General  Grant  for  a  third 
term.  In  the  midst  of  this  popular  discussion  came  explicit  declara- 
tions from  individual  delegates  in  both  States  that  they  would  not 
be  bound  by  any  unit  rule  and  should  represent  the  will  of  their 
immediate  constituencies.  William  H.  Robertson  was  the  first  in 
New  York  to  make  public  announcement  of  this  purpose,  and  James 
McManes  of  Philadelphia  led  the  movement  in  Pennsylvania.  The 
opposition  spread  to  other  States  that  had  not  yet  held  their  conven- 
tions, in  many  of  which  the  prevailing  methods  of  party  action  per- 
mitted more  freedom. 

One  of  the  last  States  to  act  was  Illinois,  and  her  Convention 
became  the  arena  of  a  stormy  contest.  The  majority  in  that  body 
assumed  authority  to  elect  all  the  National  delegates,  without  regard 
to  the  voice  or  vote  of  Congressional  districts;  and  after  a  long 
and  stubborn  struggle  it  named  a  complete  delegation,  overriding 
in  nine  of  the  districts  the  duly  accredited  choice  of  a  clear  ma- 
jority of  the  undisputed  local  representatives  in  each  district.  This 
proceeding  was  justified  on  the  one  hand  as  only  the  exercise  of  the 
supreme  power  of  the  State  Convention,  and  condemned  on  the  other 
as  trampling  on  the  right  of  district  representation ;  and  thus  the 
issue  in  its  most  distinct  form  was  brought  before  the  National  Tribu- 
nal for  settlement. 

A  large  concourse  of  delegates  and  other  active  Republicans  gath- 
ered in  Chicago  in  advance  of  the  time  appointed  for  the  National 
Convention.  The  assemblage  is  memorable  in  political  annals  for  its 


660  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

large  number  of  able  men,  for  its  brilliant  ^  displays  of  oratory,  for 
i'ts  long  duration,  and  for  its  arduous  struggle.  From  the  United 
States  Senate  came  Mr.  Conlding,  General  Logan,  George  F.  Hoar, 
J.  Donald  Cameron,  Preston  B.  Plumb,  William  Pitt  Kellogg,  and 
Blanche  K.  Bruce.  Of  the  men  soon  to  enter  the  Senate  were 
Benjamin  H.  Harrison  of  Indiana,  Eugene  Hale  and  William  P. 
Frye  of  Maine,  William  J.  Sewall  of  New  Jersey,  Omar  D.  Conger 
of  Michigan,  Dwight  M.  Sabin  of  Minnesota,  and  Philetus  Sawyer  of 
Wisconsin.  General  Garfield,  who  already  held  his  commission  as 
senator-elect,  led  the  Ohio  delegation,  with  Governor  Foster  and 
Ex-Governor  Dennison  among  his  colleagues.  Five  of  General 
Grant's  Cabinet  Ministers  were  on  the  roll  of  the  Convention, — 
Mr.  Boutwell  of  Massachusetts,  Mr.  Creswell  of  Maryland,  Mr. 
George  H.  Williams  of  Oregon,  Mr.  Edwards  Pierrepont  of  New 
York,  and  Mr.  Cameron  (already  named  with  the  senators).  Among 
other  delegates  of  distinction  were  Chester  A.  Arthur  of  New  York, 
Henry  C.  Robinson  of  Connecticut,  Governor  Martin  of  Kansas, 
General  Beaver  and  Colonel  Quay  of  Pennsylvania,  William  Walter 
Phelps  of  New  Jersey,  William  E.  Chandler  of  New  Hampshire, 
Emory  A.  Storrs  of  Illinois,  Governor  Warmoth  of  Louisiana,  Gov- 
ernor Henderson  and  J.  S.  Clarkson  of  Iowa,  President  Seelye  and 
Henry  Cabot  Lodge  of  Massachusetts.  Probably  no  other  Conven- 
tion since  that  which  nominated  Mr.  Clay  in  1844  has  contained  a 
larger  number  of 'eminent  public  men. 

The  two  men  who  from  the  first  especially  attracted  obser- 
vation were  Mr.  Conkling  and  General  Garfield.  By  intellectual 
force,  by  ardent  zeal  and  earnest  advocacy,  and  by  common  recogni- 
tion, Mr.  Conkling  was  the  master  spirit  and  became  the  acknowl- 
edged leader  of  those  who  desired  the  nomination  of  General  Grant. 
General  Garfield  bore  little  part  in  the  management,  and  was  not 
there  to  represent  the  main  body  of  those  who  opposed  General 
Grant's  candidacy.  But  the  anti-Grant  delegates,  though  divided  as 
to  candidates,  naturally  made  common  cause,  and  in  the  parliamentary 
contests  of  the  Convention  the  personal  and  intellectual  ascendency 
of  General  Garfield  made  him,  though  in  a  less  active  and  aggressive 
sense,  the  recognized  leader  of  the  opposition.  Around  the  two  chiefs 
clustered  the  loyalty  and  the  expectations  which  are  always  associated 
with  leadership,  and  the  appearance  of  each,  day  by  day  towering 
above  his  fellows,  was  the  signal  for  an  outburst  of  applause  from 
friends  and  followers. 


REPUBLICAN  NATIONAL  CONVENTION.  661 

The  preliminary  meeting  of  the  National  Committee  portended 
serious  trouble.  The  organization  was  adverse  to  the  sentiment  of 
the  majority,  and  there  was  some  fear  that  in  the  heat  of  contest  the 
just  bounds  of  authority  might  be  overstepped.  Happily  the  points 
in  dispute  were  satisfactorily  adjusted  through  frank  conference  and 
a  common  understanding.  Senator  Hoar  of  Massachusetts,  in  whose 
fairness  and  ability  both  sides  had  full  confidence,  was  accepted  by 
common  consent  for  temporary  chairman,  and  the  Convention  was 
organized  without  any  conflict.  In  calling  the  vast  assembly  to  order 
as  chairman  of  the  National  Committee,  Senator  Cameron  bespoke 
a  friendly  spirit;  and  the  speech  of  Senator  Hoar,  on  taking  the 
chair,  was  a  compact  and  forcible  contrast  of  the  career  and  record 
of  the  two  great  parties  of  the  country.  With  the  appointment  of 
the  .committees  necessary  to  complete  the  organization,  the  first  day 
of  the  Convention  closed. 

The  delegations  from  the  respective  States  named  their  own 
members  of  the  several  committees,  and  their  composition  and  votes 
upon  these  questions  indicated  the  division  of  the  States  upon  the 
main  issue.  In  the  Committee  on  Credentials  Mr.  Conger,  supported 
by  the  anti-Grant  members,  was  chosen  chairman  by  a  vote  of  29  to 
11  for  Mr.  Tracy  of  New  York.  In  the  Committee  on  Permanent 
Organization,  Senator  Hoar  had  31  votes  for  permanent  President, 
against  9  for  Mr.  Creswell  of  Maryland.  The  Committee  on  Rules 
made  General  Garfield  chairman.  It  was  known  that  apart  from 
the  balloting  for  President,  the  great  struggle  would  come  in  the 
Committee  on  Credentials,  and  upon  its  report  when  made  to  the  Con- 
vention. The  Committee  had  several  contests  to  deal  with  besides 
the  important  Illinois  case.  The  examination  of  these  cases  con- 
sumed two  days,  and  meanwhile  the  Convention  could  do  little  be- 
yond completing  the  formalities.  It  converted  the  temporary  into 
the  permanent  organization,  and  on  the  evening  of  the  second  day, 
the  Committee  on  Credentials  being  still  at  work,  Mr.  Henderson  of 
Iowa  moved  that  the  Committee  on  Rules  be  requested  to  report. 
An  extended  and  spirited  debate  ensued,  the  one  side  contending 
for  immediate  action  and  the  other  for  delay.  General  Sharpe  of 
New  York  offered  a  substitute  that  the  Committee  on  Credentials 
be  ordered  to  report.  The  substitute  was  lost  by  318  ayes  to  406 
noes,  and  the  vote  was  regarded  as  a  measurably  fair  test  of  the  rel- 
ative strength  of  the  Grant  and  anti-Grant  forces.  On  the  call  of 
the  roll  the  full  vote  of  Alabama  was  announced  for  the  substitute. 


662  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

One  of  the  delegates  protested  that  he  desired  his  vote  recorded 
against  it,  and  the  President  of  the  Convention  so  ordered.  This 
decision  broke  at  the  outset  any  attempt  to  enforce  the  Unit  Rule, 
and  affirmed  the  absolute  right  of  the  individual  delegate  to  cast  his 
vote  at  his  own  pleasure  and  upon  his  own  responsibility.  It  was 
accepted  without  appeal,  and  thus  the  law  of  Republican  Conven- 
tions was  established.  The  substitute  being  defeated,  the  original 
motion  was  laid  upon  the  table,  and  the  Convention  adjourned  until 
the  next  day. 

At  the  opening  of  the  third  day  Mr.  Conkling  offered  a  resolu- 
tion that  "  as  the  sense  of  the  Convention  every  member  is  bound  in 
honor  to  support  its  nominee,  whoever  the  nominee  may  be  ;  and  that 
no  man  should  hold  a  seat  here  who  is  not  ready  to  so  agree."  On  a 
call  of  the  roll  the  resolution  was  adopted  with  but  three  dissenting 
votes,  which  came  from  West  Virginia.  Thereupon  Mr.  Conkling 
offered  a  resolution,  declaring  in  effect  that  the  delegates  who  voted 
that  they  would  not  obey  the  action  of  the  majority  "have  for- 
feited their  votes  in  the  Convention."  Mr.  Campbell,  editor  of  the 
Wheeling  Intelligencer,  the  most  prominent  of  the  three  who  had 
voted  no,  defended  their  action.  He  expected  to  support  the  nom- 
inee of  the  Convention,  but  would  not  agree  in  advance  that  what- 
ever it  might  do  should  have  his  endorsement.  The  discussion  was 
becoming  very  animated,  when  General  Garfield,  in  an  unimpassioned 
speech,  recalled  the  Convention  to  the  real  question  and  warned  dele- 
gates against  committing  an  error.  He  said  that  those  who  voted  in 
the  negative  had  indicated  their  purpose  to  support  the  candidate, 
but  did  not  think  it  wise  to  pass  the  resolution.  "  Are  they,"  he 
asked,  "  to  be  disfranchised  because  they  thought  it  was  not  the  time 
to  make  such  an  expression  ?  That  is  the  question  and  that  is  the 
whole  question.  We  come  here  as  Republicans  and  we  are  entitled 
to  take  part  in  the  proceedings  of  this  Convention;  and  as  one  of 
our  rights  we  can  vote  on  every  resolution,  aye  or  no.  We  are  re- 
sponsible for  these  votes  to  our  constituents,  and  to  them  alone. 
There  never  was  a  convention,  there  never  can  be  a  convention,  of 
which  I  am  one  delegate,  equal  in  rights  to  every  other  delegate,  that 
shall  bind  my  vote  against  my  will  on  any  question  whatever." 
General  Garfield  insisted  that  the  delegates  had  acted  within  their 
rights,  and  appealed  to  Mr.  Conkling  to  withdraw  his  resolution, 
which  he  finally  consented  to  do.  This  brief  and  earnest  speech 
made  a  deep  impression  upon  the  Convention. 


REPUBLICAN  NATIONAL  CONVENTION.  663 

The  report  on  contested  States  was  now  presented  by  Senator 
Conger,  and  led  to  a  debate  and  a  struggle  lasting  through  the  larger 
part  of  two  days.  The  Committee  had  examined  cases  involving  the 
seats  of  fifty  delegates  and  alternates.  After  eliminating  those  about 
which  there  could  be  no  reasonable  dispute  and  upon  which  a  unani- 
mous conclusion  was  reached,  the  final  issue  involved  three  delegates 
from  Alabama,  eighteen  from  Illinois,  two  from  West  Virginia,  and 
four  from  Kansas.  In  all  of  these  cases  the  decision  rested  upon  the 
principle  of  district  representation.  The  majority  of  the  Committee 
accepted  that  principle  as  the  established  law  of  Republican  Conven- 
tions, and  reported  in  favor  of  the  delegates  chosen  under  it.  The 
minority  of  the  Committee,  representing  fourteen  States  and  led  by 
Mr.  Tracy  of  New  York,  reported  against  the  delegates  elected  on 
the  district  plan,  and  sustained  the  authority  of  the  State  Conven- 
tions to  overrule  the  choice  of  the  district  representatives.  The 
issue  of  district  representation  was  thus  clearly  and  sharply  presented. 
The  first  case  in  order  was  that  of  Alabama,  and  after  full  debate  a 
motion  to  substitute  the  report  of  the  minority  for  that  of  the  major- 
ity was  defeated,  the  ayes  being  306,  the  noes  449.  The  Convention 
thus  re-affirmed  the  cardinal  doctrine  of  district  representation. 
The  case  of  Illinois,  which  had  excited  more  interest  than  all  others, 
next  came  up.  The  discussion  was  prolonged  and  animated,  and 
the  result  was  not  reached  until  nearly  two  o'clock  in  the  morning. 
Nine  districts  were  at  stake,  but  the  vote  was  taken  on  each  sep- 
arately, and  the  delegates  chosen  in  the  districts  were  admitted  by 
a  vote  of  387  to  353.  In  the  cases  of  West  Virginia  and  Kansas 
there  was  some  dispute  as  to  the  facts,  but  they  were  decided  upon 
the  same  principle  according  to  the  best  understanding  of  the  Con- 
vention. 

The  report  of  the  Committee  on  Rules,  which  had  already  been 
submitted  by  General  Garfield,  was  now  taken  up.  The  proposed 
rules  embraced  simply  verbal  changes  from  those  of  1876,  and  only 
one  change  of  substance.  This  was  an  addition  to  rule  eight,  relat- 
ing to  cases  where  the  vote  of  a  State  is  divided.  The  old  rule  pre- 
scribed that  where  the  vote  was  divided  the  chairman  of  the  delega- 
tion should  announce  the  number  of  votes  cast  for  any  candidate  or 
for  or  against  any  proposition.  The  Committee  reported  in  favor  of 
adding  the  following :  "  but  if  exception  is  taken  by  any  delegate  to 
the  correctness  of  such  announcement  by  the  chairman  of  his  delega- 
tion, the  President  of  the  Convention  shall  direct  the  roll  of  mem- 


664  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

bers  of  such  delegation  to  be  called,  and  the  result  shall  be  recorded 
in  accordance  with  the  votes  individually  given."  This  amendment 
was  designed  to  protect  the  vote  of  the  individual  delegate.  It  was 
a  final  blow  at  the  Unit  Rule,  and  aimed  to  reduce  the  precedents 
and  decisions  of  former  conventions  to  plain  and  unambiguous 
language. 

The  minority  of  the  Committee,  representing  eleven  States, 
reported  against  any  change  of  rule.  As  soon,  however,  as  the  two 
reports  were  submitted  to  the  Convention,  and  before  they  were  dis- 
cussed, General  Sharpe  of  New  York,  who  led  the  minority,  moved 
that  the  Convention  proceed  at  once  to  ballot  for  candidates  for  Pres- 
ident and  Vice-President.  This  was  urged  upon  the  plea  of  saving 
time,  and  upon  the  ground  that  nothing  else  remained  to  be  done ; 
but  General  Garfield  pointed  out,  with  his  habitual  clearness,  that 
such  action  would  leave  the  Convention  without  any  regulations  to 
determine  the  method  of  procedure  or  to  decide  controversies.  Under 
the  influence  of  his  forcible  argument  General  Sharpe's  proposition 
was  lost  by  a  vote  of  479  to  276.  The  rules,  as  reported  by  the 
majority,  were  then  adopted,  with  an  amendment  that  "  the  National 
Committee  shall  prescribe  the  method  or  methods  for  the  election  of 
delegates  to  the  National  Convention  to  be  held  in  1884,  provided 
that  nothing  in  the  method  or  rules  so  prescribed  shall  be  construed 
to  prevent  the  several  districts  of  the  United  States  from  selecting 
their  own  delegates  to  the  National  Convention."  The  overthrow 
of  the  Unit  Rule  and  the  establishment  of  district  representation 
were  thus  finally  secured. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  of  New  York  reported  the  platform.  It  recounted 
the  achievements  of  the  party  and  re-affirmed  its  accepted  prin- 
ciples. No  one  issue  was  treated  as  overmastering.  Protection, 
which  became  the  controlling  question  of  the  campaign,  was  pre- 
sented only  by  repeating  the  avowal  of  1876.  The  restriction  of 
Chinese  immigration  was  approved.  The  Democratic  party  was 
charged  with  sustaining  fraudulent  elections,  with  unseating  mem- 
bers of  Congress  who  had  been  lawfully  chosen,  with  viciously 
attaching  partisan  legislation  to  Appropriation  Bills,  and  with  seek- 
ing to  obliterate  the  sacred  memories  of  the  war.  "  The  solid  South," 
it  was  declared,  "must  be  divided  by  the  peaceful  agencies  of  the 
ballot;  and  all  honest  opinions  must  there  find  free  expression." 
The  platform,  as  reported,  was  silent  on  the  subject  of  Civil-Service 
Reform;  and  Mr.  Barker  of  Massachusetts  offered  an  amendment 


NOMINATION  OF  GENERAL  GARFIELD.  665 

"that  the  Republican  party  adopts  the  declaration  of  President 
Hayes,  that  the  reform  in  the  civil  service  shall  be  thorough,  radical, 
and  complete,  and  to  that  end  demands  the  co-operation  of  the 
Legislative  with  the  Executive  Departments  of  the  Government." 
The  amendment  was  carried,  and  the  platform  adopted. 

It  was  now  late  Saturday  afternoon,  and  the  Convention  had 
already  extended  through  four  days.  The  session  of  Saturday  even- 
ing, devoted  to  the  presentation  of  Presidential  candidates,  was 
dramatic  and  stirring.  The  vast  Exposition  Hall  was  packed  with 
ten  thousand  interested  and  eager  observers.  The  contending  parti- 
sans were  alert  for  every  advantage  and  enthusiastic  in  every  demon- 
stration. —  Mr.  Elaine  was  first  placed  in  nomination  by  Mr.  Joy 
of  Michigan,  seconded  by  Mr.  Pixley  of  California  and  Mr.  Frye  of 
Maine.  —  When  Mr.  Conkling  rose  to  present  the  name  of  General 
Grant,  the  vast  audience  gave  him  an  enthusiastic  welcome ;  and  his 
powerful  and  eloquent  speech  was  followed  by  prolonged  and  gener- 
ous applause. —  As  General  Garfield  moved  forward  to  nominate 
John  Sherman,  he  was  the  object  of  general  and  hearty  admira- 
tion. His  dignified  bearing,  his  commanding  ability,  his  persuasive 
eloquence,  and  his  manifest  spirit  of  fairness  had  made  a  profound 
impression  on  the  Convention.  His  present  speech  deepened  that 
feeling.  It  was  a  dispassionate  appeal  from  the  swelling  tumult  of 
the  moment  uto  the  calm  level  of  public  opinion."  —  The  name 
of  Senator  Edmunds  was  presented  by  Mr.  Frederick  Billings  of 
Vermont.  —  Elihu  B.  Washburne  was  presented  by  Mr.  Cassoday 
of  Wisconsin,  and  William  Windom  by  Mr.  Drake  of  Minnesota. 
The  speakers  had  not  been  the  only  actors  of  the  evening.  The 
audience  took  full  part.  The  scenes  of  tumultuous  and  prolonged 
applause  when  the  two  leading  candidates  were  named  has  never 
been  equaled  in  any  similar  assemblage.  It  was  nearly  midnight  of 
Saturday  when  the  Convention  adjourned. 

With  the  opening  of  Monday's  session  the  voting  began.  The 
first  ballot  gave  Grant  304,  Elaine  284,  Sherman  93,  Edmunds  34, 
Washburne  30,  Windom  10,  Garfield  1.  Twenty-seven  ballots  fol- 
lowed without  material  change,  when  the  Convention  adjourned 
until  the  next  day.  On  Tuesday  morning  the  twenty-ninth  ballot 
exhibited  no  variation,  except  that  Massachusetts  transferred  the 
majority  of  its  votes  from  Edmunds  to  Sherman,  reducing  the  former 
to  12  and  raising  the  latter  to  116.  On  the  thirtieth  ballot  Sherman 
advanced  to  120  and  Windom  fell  to  4.  The  next  three  ballots 


666  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

were  substantially  the  same.  On  the  thirty-fourth  ballot  Wisconsin 
cast  16  votes  for  General  Garfield,  and  the  great  body  of  delegates 
at  once  saw  that  the  result  was  foreshadowed.  On  the  thirty-fifth 
ballot  Indiana,  following  Wisconsin,  cast  27  votes  for  Garfield,  and 
scattering  votes  carried  his  aggregate  to  50.  The  culmination  was 
now  reached.  As  the  thirty-sixth  ballot  opened,  the  delegations 
which  had  been  voting  for  Elaine  and  Sherman  changed  to  Garfield. 
The  banners  of  the  States  were  caught  up  and  massed  in  a  waving 
circle  around  the  head  of  the  predestined  and  now  chosen  candidate, 
who  sat  pale  and  motionless  in  his  seat  with  the  Ohio  delegation. 
The  scene  of  enthusiasm  and  exultation  long  delayed  the  final  an- 
nouncement, which  gave  Garfield  399  votes,  Grant  306,  Elaine  42, 
Washburne  5,  Sherman  3.  The  nomination  was  immediately  made 
unanimous  on  motion  of  Mr.  Conkling.  For  Vice-President  Elihu 
B.  Washburne,  Marshall  Jewell,  Thomas  Settle,  Horace  Maynard, 
Chester  A.  Arthur,  and  Edmund  J.  Davis  were  placed  in  nomina- 
tion, and  General  Arthur  was  chosen  on  the  first  ballot  by  a  vote 
of  468  to  193  for  Mr.  Washburne  and  some  scattering  votes  for  other 
candidates. 

The  result  of  the  Convention  was  generally  accepted  as  a  happy 
issue  of  the  long  contest.  The  nomination  of  General  Garfield  was 
unexpected  but  it  was  not  unwelcome.  It  was  not  an  escape  from 
the  clash  of  positive  purposes  by  a  resort  to  a  negative  and  feeble 
expedient.  General  Garfield  was  neither  an  unknown  nor  an  un- 
tried man.  For  twenty  years  he  had  been  prominent  in  the  public 
service,  both  civil  and  military,  and  for  ten  years  he  had  ranked 
among  the  foremost  Republican  leaders.  No  statesman  of  the  times 
surpassed  him  in  thorough  acquaintance  with  the  principles  of  free 
government,  in  knowledge  of  the  legislative  and  administrative  his- 
tory of  our  own  country,  and  in  intelligent  grasp  of  the  great  ques- 
tions still  at  issue.  In  eloquence,  culture,  and  resources  he  had  few 
peers.  His  ascendency  in  the  Convention  was  so  marked  as  to  turn 
all  eyes  towards  him.  His  conspicuous  part  in  the  debates  of  Con- 
gress, his  numerous  popular  addresses,  had  made  him  familiar  to  all 
the  people.  He  represented  the  liberal  and  progressive  spirit  of  Re- 
publicanism without  being  visionary  and  impractical,  and  his  nomi- 
nation was  accepted  as  placing  the  party  on  advanced  ground. 

General  Arthur  was  a  graduate  of  Union  College  and  a  member 
of  the  New- York  Bar.  He  was  prominently  connected  with  Gov- 
ernor Morgan's  Administration  during  the  war  and  gained  great 


DEMOCRATIC  NATIONAL  CONVENTION.  667 

credit  for  the  manner  in  which  he  discharged  his  important  duties  as 
Quartermaster-General  of  the  State.  He  subsequently  held  for  sev- 
eral years  the  responsible  and  influential  position  of  Collector  of 
Customs  for  the  port  of  New  York.  During  the  period  of  his  ser- 
vice he  collected  and  paid  into  the  Treasury  more  than  a  thousand 
millions  of  dollars  in  gold  coin.  He  had  wide  acquaintance  with 
the  public  men  of  the  country  and  had  long  enjoyed  personal  popu- 
larity. As  a  citizen  of  New  York  and  a  conspicuous  advocate  of 
President  Grant's  nomination  his  selection  met  with  general  favor. 


The  Democratic  Convention  met  at  Cincinnati  on  the  22d  of 
June  (1880).  The  preliminary  canvass  and  discussion  had  not  in- 
dicated a  prevailing  choice.  The  only  definite  policy  anywhere  sug- 
gested was  that  the  position  of  the  Democratic  party  demanded  the 
renomination  of  Mr.  Tilden  for  the  Presidency,  and  that  a  failure  to 
present  him  as  a  candidate  would  be  equivalent  to  withdrawing  the 
allegation  and  argument  of  the  Electoral  fraud.  But  to  this  plea 
the  forcible  answer  was  made  that  the  discreditable  attempts  of  Mr. 
Tilden's  immediate  circle  upon  the  returning  boards  of  the  disputed 
States  had  compromised  his  candidacy  and  injured  his  party;  and 
on  this  ground  a  strong  opposition  was  made  to  his  nomination. 
Mr.  Tilden  himself  settled  the  question  by  writing  an  extended  and 
ingenious  letter  a  few  days  before  the  Convention,  declining  to  be  a 
candidate.  Their  immediate  choice  being  unavailable,  his  New- York 
followers  made  a  strenuous  effort  to  control  the  nomination,  first  for 
Henry  B.  Payne  of  Ohio,  and  next  for  Samuel  J.  Randall  of  Penn- 
sylvania. The  candidates  were  numerous,  but  the  leading  places 
were  held  by  General  Hancock  and  Senator  Bayard. 

The  Convention  was  promptly  organized  with  Judge  Hoadly  of. 
Ohio  as  temporary  chairman,  and  Senator  Stevenson  of  Kentucky  as 
permanent  President.  A  ballot  was  reached  on  the  second  day. 
The  South  was  almost  evenly  divided  between  Bayard  and  Hancock. 
New  England  preferred  Hancock  to  Bayard.  The  West  showed  no 
preponderance  for  either,  and  was  broken  among  many  candidates. 
New  York  was  solidly  for  Payne,  but  made  little  impression  because 
Payne's  own  State  of  Ohio  stood  for  Senator  Thurman.  Judge  Field 
of  California  and  William  R.  Morrison  of  Illinois  had  the  support  of 
their  own  States,  with  a  few  scattering  votes.  The  multiplicity  of 


668  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

candidates  indicated  the  lack  of  a  definite  sentiment  and  a  clear 
policy.  The  first  ballot  gave  Hancock  171,  Bayard  153£,  Payne  81, 
Thurman  68i,  Field  65,  Morrison  62,  Hendricks  49i,  Tilden  38,  with 
a  few  votes  to  minor  candidates.  On  this  test  the  Convention 
adjourned  for  the  day,  and  during  the  night  combinations  already 
inaugurated  were  fully  completed,  by  which  Hancock's  nomination 
was  made  certain.  The  next  day  opened  with  the  announcement  that 
New  York  had  withdrawn  Payne  and  fixed  upon  Randall  as  its 
choice,  but  it  was  too  late.  The  second  roll-call  ended  without  a 
decision,  but  before  the  result  was  declared  Wisconsin  changed  to 
Hancock.  This  was  followed  by  a  similar  move  from  New  Jersey, 
and  immediately  State  after  State  joined  in  his  support  until  he  had 
705  votes,  —  leaving  of  the  whole  Convention  but  30  for  Hendricks 
and  2  for  Bayard.  William  H.  English  of  Indiana,  who  had  served 
in  Congress  during  Mr.  Buchanan's  administration,  was  nominated 
for  Vice-President.  The  platform,  in  marked  contrast  with  the  elab- 
orate document  of  the  preceding  campaign,  was  a  compact  and  ener- 
getic statement  of  the  Democratic  creed.  It  embodied  a  fatal 
declaration  in  favor  of  a  tariff  for  revenue  only,  made  vehement  utter- 
ance on  the  alleged  election  fraud  of  1876,  demanded  honest  money 
of  coin  or  paper  convertible  into  coin,  and  gave  a  strong  pledge 
against  permitting  Chinese  immigration. 

General  Hancock's  nomination  was  greeted  with  heartiness 
amounting  to  enthusiasm.  He  had  received  a  military  education  at 
West  Point ;  he  had  been  brevetted  in  the  Mexican  war  for  gallant 
conduct  at  Contreras  and  Cherubusco.  In  the  war  for  the  Union  he 
had  acquired  high  rank  as  a  commander.  He  distinguished  himself 
throughout  the  Peninsular  campaign  and  at  Antietam.  He  added  to 
his  fame  on  the  decisive  field  of  Gettysburg.  He  was  with  Grant 
during  most  of  the  campaign  which  was  crowned  with  final  triumph 
at  Appomattox,  and  bore  a  conspicuous  part  on  its  bloody  fields. 
Brave,  gallant,  and  patriotic,  a  true  soldier  and  a  chivalrous,  gentle- 
man, he  was  a  worthy  representative  of  that  faithful  and  honorable 
class  of  "  War  Democrats,"  who  in  the  time  of  the  Nation's  peril 
stood  for  the  flag  and  for  the  integrity  of  their  country.  There  were 
many  of  that  type,  who  allowed  no  political  differences  to  restrain 
them  from  doing  their  full  share  towards  the  preservation  of  the 
Union ;  and  no  duty  is  more  grateful  than  that  of  recognizing  their 
loyal  services.  General  Hancock  was  at  their  head,  and  no  partisan 
distinctions  or  subsequent  political  differences  can  diminish  the  re- 


PRESIDENTIAL  CAMPAIGN  OF  1880. 

spect  in  which  he  is  deservedly  held  by  every  loyal  lover  of  the 
Union  of  the  States. 

The  campaign  did  not  open  altogether  auspiciously  for  the  Re- 
publicans. The  September  election  for  Governor  and  members  of 
the  Legislature  in  Maine  had  resulted  adversely.  The  Republican 
party  in  that  State,  owing  to  a  large  defection  on  the  greenback  issue 
and  a  coalition  of  all  its  opponents,  had  been  defeated  in  1878  by 
more  than  13,000  majority.  In  1879  the  lost  ground  was  in  large 
part  regained,  but  the  party,  while  electing  the  Legislature,  was  again 
outnumbered  on  the  popular  vote.  In  1880  the  re-action  in  favor 
of  the  Republicans  had  not  begun  in  any  State  as  early  as  September. 
The  issue  on  the  Protective  Tariff  had  not  yet  been  debated,  and 
Maine,  though  giving  a  majority  of  6,000  in  the  Presidential  election, 
lost  the  Governorship  in  September  by  164  votes.  As  a  victory  had 
been  confidently  expected  by  the  country  at  large,  the  failure  to 
secure  it  had  a  depressing  effect  upon  the  Republican  party. 

The  discouragement  however  was  but  for  a  day.  Re-action 
speedily  came,  and  the  party  was  spurred  to  greater  efforts.  There 
was  also  a  change  in  the  issues  presented,  and  from  that  time  the 
industrial  question  monopolized  public  attention.  The  necessity 
of  special  exertion  in  the  October  States  led  to  a  very  earnest  and 
spirited  canvass  in  Ohio  and  Indiana.  The  Democratic  declaration 
in  favor  of  a  tariff  for  revenue  only  was  turned  with  tremendous 
force  against  that  party.  A  marked  feature  of  what  may  be  termed 
the  October  campaign  was  the  visit  of  General  Grant  to  Ohio  and 
Indiana,  accompanied  by  Senator  Conkling.  The  speeches  of  the 
two  undoubtedly  exerted  a  strong  influence,  and  aided  in  large  part 
to  carry  those  States  for  the  Republicans. 

From  this  day  forward  the  contest  was  regarded  as  very  close, 
but  with  the  chances  inclining  in  favor  of  the  Republicans.  In  the 
hope  of  counteracting  the  effect  of  the  argument  for  a  Protective 
Tariff  in  winning  the  industrial  element  of  the  country  to  Republi- 
can support,  the  Democratic  managers  concocted  one  of  the  most 
detestable  and  wicked  devices  ever  conceived  in  political  warfare. 
A  letter,  purporting  to  have  been  written  by  General  Garfield,  and 
designed  to  represent  him  as  approving  Chinese  immigration  to  com- 
pete with  home  labor,  was  cunningly  forged.  This  so-called  "  Morey 
letter,"  in  which  the  handwriting  and  signature  of  the  Republican 
candidate  were  imitated  with  some  skill,  was  lithographed  and  spread 
broadcast  about  two  weeks  before  the  election. 


670  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

General  Garfield  promptly  branded  the  letter  as  a  forgery  and 
the  evidences  of  its  character  were  speedily  made  clear.  Neverthe- 
less active  Democratic  leaders  continued  to  assert  its  genuineness, 
and  Mr.  Abram  S.  Hewitt  was  conspicuous  in  giving  the  weight  of 
his  name  to  this  calumny,  until  the  force  of  the  accumulating  proof 
constrained  him  to  admit  in  a  public  speech,  that  the  text  of  the 
letter  was  spurious,  while  still  maintaining,  against  General  Garfield's 
solemn  denial,  that  the  signature  was  genuine.  The  prompt  action 
of  General  Garfield  and  his  friends  did  much  to  render  this  crafty 
and  dangerous  trick  abortive,  but  there  was  not  sufficient  time  to 
destroy  altogether  the  effect  of  its  instant  and  wide  dissemination. 
The  forgery  cost  General  Garfield\  the  electoral  votes  of  New  Jersey 
and  Nevada  and  five  of  the  six  votes  of  California.  He  carried  every 
other  Northern  State,  while  General  Hancock  carried  every  Southern 
State.  The  final  result  gave  to  Garfield  214  electoral  votes  against 
155  for  Hancock. 


The  salient  and  most  serious  fact  of  the  Presidential  election  was 
the  absolute  consolidation  of  the  Electoral  vote  of  the  South ;  not 
merely  of  the  eleven  States  that  composed  the  Confederacy,  but  of 
the  five  others  in  which  slaves  were  held  at  the  beginning  of  the 
civil  struggle.  The  leading  Democrats  of  the  South  had  been  stead- 
ily aiming  at  this  result  from  the  moment  that  they  found  themselves 
compelled  by  the  fortunes  of  war  to  remain  citizens  of  the  United 
States.  The  Reconstruction  laws  had  held  them  in  check  in  1868 ; 
the  re-action  against  Mr.  Greeley  had  destroyed  Southern  unity  in 
1872 ;  it  had  been  assumed  with  boastful  confidence,  but  at  the  last 
miscarrie.d,  in  1876 ;  and  now,  in  1880,  it  was  finally  and  fully  ac- 
complished. The  result  betokened  thenceforth  a  struggle  within 
the  Union  far  more  radical  than  that  which  had  been  carried  on 
from  the  formation  of  the  Constitution  until  the  secession  of  the 
South. 

During  the  first  half  of  this  century  Southern  statesmen  had  de- 
manded and  secured  equality  of  representation  in  the  Senate.  Its 
loss  in  1850  was  among  the  causes  which  led  them  to  revolt  against 
National  authority.  But  even  the  equality  of  representation  was 
for  a  section  and  not  for  a  party,  and  its  existence  did  not  prevent 
the  free  play  of  contests  on  other  issues.  Partisan  divisions  in  the 
South  upon  tariff,  upon  bank,  upon  internal  improvement,  between 


THE  SECTIONAL  STRUGGLE.  671 

Whig  on  the  one  side  and  Democrat  on  the  other,  were  as  marked  as 
in  the  North.  Southern  men  of  all  parties  would  unite  against  the 
admission  of  a  Northern  State  until  a  Southern  State  was  ready  to 
offset  its  vote  in  the  Senate,  but  they  never  sought  to  compel  unity 
of  opinion  throughout  all  Southern  States  upon  partisan  candidates 
or  upon  public  measures.  The  evident  policy  in  the  South  since  the 
close  of  the  civil  war  has  been,  therefore,  of  a  more  engrossing  and 
more  serious  character.  It  comprehends  nothing  less  than  the  abso- 
lute consolidation  of  sixteen  States,  —  not  by  liberty  of  speech,  or 
public  discussion,  or  freedom  of  suffrage,  but  by  a  tyranny  of  opinion 
which  threatens  timid  dissentients  with  social  ostracism  and  sup- 
presses the  bolder  form  of  opposition  by  force. 

The  struggle  which  this  policy  invites,  nay  which  it  enforces,  is 
as  much  a  moral  as  a  political  struggle.  It  is  not  a  contention  over 
measures.  It  is  a  contest  for  equal  rights  under  the  Constitution, 
for  simple  justice  between  citizens  of  the  same  Republic.  Nor 
is  the  struggle  hopeless.  Re-action  will  come  in  the  South  itself. 
The  passion  and  prejudice  which  influence  men  who  were  defeated 
in  the  war  cannot  be  transmitted  to  succeeding  generations.  Prin- 
ciple will  re-assert  itself;  local  and  state  interest  will  command  a 
change.  The  signs  even  now  are  hopeful.  The  personal  relations 
between  men  of  the  South  and  men  of  the  North  are  more  amicable 
than  they  have  been  for  sixty  years.  Diversity  of  employment,  the 
spirit  of  industrial  enterprise,  the  unification  of  financial  interests, 
will  tend  more  and  more  to  assimilate  the  populations,  more  and 
more  to  enforce  an  agreement,  if  not  as  to  measures,  yet  assuredly 
as  to  methods.  No  man  in  the  North,  valuing  the  freedom  for 
which  a  great  war  was  waged,  desires  to  control  the  vote  of  a  single 
individual  in  the  South.  He  only  desires  that  every  individual  in 
the  South,  as  in  the  North,  shall  control  his  own  vote,  and  when 
that  is  done  the  result,  whatever  it  may  be,  will  always  be  cheerfully 
accepted.  Contention  between  sections,  divided  by  a  fixed  line,  is 
the  most  undesirable  form  of  political  controversy.  It  is  also  the 
most  illogical.  But  consolidation  on  one  side  tends  naturally  and 
always  to  consolidation  on  the  other  side.  The  growth  of  the  coun- 
try will  ultimately  effect  an  adjustment,  but  the  reason  of  men  should 
not  wait  for  the  mere  power  of  numbers  to  settle  questions  which 
properly  belong  in  the  domain  of  reason  alone. 

Nor  do  the  Southern  leaders  seem  ever  to  have  correctly  esti- 
mated the  political  force  that  is  to  come  from  the  predestined  in- 


672  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

crease  of  numbers.  Aside  from  the  vast  growth  of  population  in 
the  new  States  and  Territories  of  the  North- West,  the  increase  of  the 
colored  race  in  the  South  must  arrest  attention.  In  the  lifetime  of 
those  now  living,  that  class  of  the  population  will  reach  the  enor- 
mous aggregate  of  five  and  twenty  millions,  As  this  increase  con- 
tinues, no  policy  could  possibly  be  devised  so  fatal  to  Southern 
prosperity  as  that  which  Southern  leaders  have  pursued  since  the 
close  of  the  war.  Ceasing  to  be  a  slave  the  colored  man  must  be 
a  citizen.  He  cannot  be  permanently  held  in  a  condition  between 
the  two.  He  cannot  be  remanded  to  slavery.  His  numbers  will 
ultimately  command  what  should  now  be  yielded  on  the  ground  of 
simple  justice  and  wise  policy. 


The  twenty  years  between  1861  and  1881  are  memorable  in  the 
history  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  Senators  and  Repre- 
sentatives were  called  upon  to  deal  with  new  problems  from  the  hour 
in  which  they  were  summoned  by  President  Lincoln  to  provide  for 
the  exigencies  of  a  great  war.  They  confronted  enormous  difficulties 
at  every  step ;  and  if  they  had  failed  in  their  duty,  if  they  had  not 
comprehended  the  gravity  and  peril  of  the  situation,  if  they  had 
faltered  in  courage,  or  had  been  obscured  in  vision,  the  Union  of 
the  States  might  have  been  lost,  the  progress  of  civilization  on  the 
American  Continent  checked  for  generations.  With  the  National 
arms  triumphant,  with  the  Union  of  the  States  made  strong,  the 
American  people,  in  the  quiet  of  domestic  peace,  in  the  enjoyment 
of  wide-spread  prosperity,  should  not  forget  the  dangers  and  sacrifices 
which  secured  to  them  their  great  blessings. 

—  The  first  demand  of  Avar  is  money.     So  great  was  the  amount  re- 
quired that  Congress  provided  and  the  Executive  expended  a  larger 
sum  in  each  year  of  the  civil  struggle  than  the  total  revenues  of  the 
Government  had  been  for  the  seventy-two  years  elapsing  between 
the  inauguration  of  Washington  and  the  inauguration  of  Lincoln. 

—  When  the  power  of  the  Nation  was  challenged,  the  Army  was  so 
small  as  scarcely  to  provide  an  efficient  guard  for  the  residence  of  the 
Chief  Magistrate  against  a  hostile  movement  of  the  disloyal  popula- 
tion that  surrounded  him.     Congress  provided  for  the  assembling  of 
a  host  that  grew  in  magnitude  until  it  surpassed  in  numbers   the 
largest  military  force  ever  put  in  the  field  by  a  European  power. 


W.  Wells  ceo d. 


NUMBER  SERVING  IN  HOUSE   AND  SENATE.  675 

period,  at  the  rate  of  nearly  a  million  each  year ;  and  each  year  there 
was  added  to  the  permanent  wealth  of  the  people  §1,500,000,000 ;  — 
a  fact  made  all  the  more  surprising  when  it  is  remembered  that  they 
were  at  the  same  time  burdened  with  the  interest  on  the  National 
debt,  of  which  they  discharged  more  than  eleven  hundred  millions  of 
dollars  of  the  principal  within  the  period  named. 

Such  progress  is  not  only  unprecedented  but  phenomenal.  It 
could  not  have  been  made  except  under  wise  laws,  honestly  and  im- 
partially administered.  It  could  not  have  been  made  except  under 
an  industrial  system  which  stimulated  enterprise,  quickened  capital, 
assured  to  labor  its  just  reward.  It  could  not  have  been  made  under 
the  narrowing  policy  which  assumes  the  sovereignty  of  the  State.  It 
required  the  broad  measures,  the  expanding  functions,  which  belong 
to  a  free  Nation.  Not  simply  to  the  leading  statesmen  of  the  Senate 
and  the  House,  but  to  Congress  as  a  whole,  in  its  aggregate  wisdom, 
—  always  greater  than  the  wisdom  of  any  one  man,  —  credit  and 
honor  are  due ;  due  for  intelligence,  for  courage,  for  zeal  in  the 
service  of  an  endangered  but  now  triumphant  and  prosperous 
Republic. 

During  the  twenty  years,  the  representatives  serving  in  the 
House  exceeded  fifteen  hundred  in  number.  As  an  illustration  of 
the  rapidity  of  change  in  elective  officers  where  suffrage  is  absolutely 
free,  each  succeeding  House  in  the  ten  Congresses,  with  a  single 
exception,  contained  a  majority  of  new  members.  Only  one  repre- 
sentative in  all  this  number  served  continuously  from  1861  to 
1881,  —  the  Honorable  William  D.  Kelley,  eminent  in  his  advocacy 
of  the  Protective  system,  steadily  growing  throughout  the  entire 
period  in  the  respect  of  his  associates  and  in  the  confidence  of  the 
constituency  that  has  so  frequently  honored  him.  In  the  Senate 
the  ratio  of  change,  owing  to  the  longer  term  of  office,  has  been  less ; 
but,  even  in  that  more  conservative  body,  rotation  in  membership 
has  been  rapid.  In  the  twenty  years  nearly  two  hundred  and  fifty 
senators  occupied  seats  in  the  chamber.  Of  the  whole  number, 
Henry  B.  Anthony  of  Rhode  Island,  warmly  remembered  by  both 
political  parties,  was  the  only  senator  whose  service  was  unbroken 
from  the  opening  to  the  close  of  the  period.  Two  others  were  in 
Congress  for  the  whole  time,  but  not  continuously  in  either  House. 
Justin  S.  Morrill  served  six  years  in  the  House  and  fourteen  in  the 
Senate ;  Henry  L.  Dawes  served  fourteen  years  in  the  House  and  six 
in  the  Senate.  For  the  entire  period  both  were  consistent  upholders 


676  TWENTY  YEARS  OF  CONGRESS. 

of  Republican  ideas  and  Republican  policies.  —  James  A.  Garfield 
who  was  a  member  of  the  House  for  eighteen  of  the  twenty  years 
was,  in  November,  1880,  by  a  singular  concurrence  of  circumstances 
placed  in  an  official  position  altogether  without  precedent.  He  was 
at  the  same  time  Representative  in  Congress,  Senator-elect  from  the 
State  of  Ohio,  President-elect  of  the  United  States. 

The  National  Government  has  in  these  twenty  years  proved  its 
strength  in  war,  its  conservatism  in  peace.  The  self-restraint  which 
the  citizens  of  the  Republic  exhibited  in  the  hour  of  need,  the  great 
burdens  which  they  bore  under  the  inspiration  of  patriotic  duty,  the 
public  order  which  they  maintained  by  their  instinctive  obedience  to 
the  command  of  law,  all  attest  the  good  government  of  a  self-govern- 
ing people.  Full  liberty  to  criticise  the  acts  of  persons  in  official 
station,  free  agitation  of  all  political  questions,  frequent  elections 
that  give  opportunity  for  prompt  settlement  of  all  issues,  tend  to 
insure  popular  content  and  public  safety.  No  Government  of  mod- 
ern times  has  encountered  the  dangers  that  beset  the  United  States, 
or  achieved  the  triumphs  wherewith  the  Nation  is  crowned.  * 

The  assassination  of  two  Presidents,  one  inaugurated  at  the  begin- 
ning, the  other  at  the  close  of  this  period,  while  a  cause  of  profound 
National  grief,  reflects  no  dishonor  upon  popular  government.  The 
murder  of  Lincoln  was  the  maddened  and  aimless  blow  of  an  expir- 
ing rebellion.  The  murder  of  Garfield  was  the  fatuous  impulse  of 
a  debauched  conscience  if  not  a  disordered  brain.  Neither  crime 
had  its  origin  in  the  political  institutions  or  its  growth  in  the  social 
organization  of  the  country.  Both  crimes  received  the  execration  of 
all  parties  and  all  sections.  In  the  universal  horror  which  they  in- 
spired, in  the  majestic  supremacy  of  law,  which  they  failed  to  disturb, 
may  be  read  the  strongest  proof  of  the  stability  of  a  Government 
which  is  founded  upon  the  rights,  fortified  by  the  intelligence,  in- 
wrought with  the  virtues  of  the  people.  For  as  it  was  said  of  old, 
wisdom  and  knowledge  shall  be  stability,  and  the  work-  of  right- 
eousness shall  be  peace ! 


ADDENDUM. 


HON.  GALUSHA  A.  GKOW,  who  filled  the  important  post  of  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Territories  in  the  Thirty-sixth  Congress,  criticises  the  statements 
made  on  pages  269-272  of  Volume  I.  The  anomaly  was  there  pointed  out  that  the 
men  who  had  been  most  active  in  condemning  Mr.  Webster  for  consenting  to  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Territories  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah  in  1850  without  a  prohibition  of  slavery, 
consented  in  1861  to  the  organization  of  the  Territories  of  Colorado,  Dakota,  and  Nevada 
without  a  prohibition.  Mr.  Grow  as  a  zealous  anti-slavery  man  writes  in  defense  of  the 
course  adopted  in  1861.  The  wisdom  of  the  course  was  not  criticised.  Its  consistency 
only  was  challenged.  After  giving  a  history  of  the  various  steps  in  organizing  the  three 
Territories  in  1861,  and  of  the  great  need,  by  reason  of  the  pressure  of  thousands  of  emi- 
grants, of  providing  a  government  therefor,  and  the  impracticability  of  passing  a  Terri- 
torial bill  with  an  anti-slavery  proviso,  Mr.  Grow,  in  a  letter  to  the  author,  says,  — 

"  The  Republican  party,  about  to  be  entrusted  for  the  first  time  with  the  administra- 
tion of  the  Government,  must  show,  in  addition  to  sound  principles,  that  it  possessed  suffi- 
cient practical  statesmanship  to  solve  wisely  any  question  relative  to  the  development  of 
the  material  resources  of  the  country,  or  it  would  prove  itself  incompetent  to  the  trust 
imposed  by  the  people. 

"There  was  this  difference  in  the  condition  of  the  public  affairs  then,  from  what  it 
was  when  Mr.  Webster  made  his  celebrated  speech  of  March  7th.  The  great  battle  be- 
tween Freedom  and  Slavery  for  supremacy  in  the  Territories  had  been  fought  and  won 
in  Kansas,  and  the  people  had  elected  a  Chief  Magistrate  on  Freedom's  side,  so  that  the 
influences  of  National  Administration  would  no  longer  be  wielded  for  the  extension  of 
human  bondage.  Besides,  Kansas,  a  free  State,  and  New  Mexico,  a  Territory  already 
organized,  would  lie  between  these  new  Territories  and  slave  institutions,  so  that  by  no 
possibility  could  they  in  the  ordinary  course  of  events  become  slave  States. 

"  On  the  7th  of  March,  1850,  when  Mr.  Webster  from  the  Senate  chamber  appealed  to 
the  North  to  '  conquer  its  prejudices  '  and  rely  on  the  laws  of  God  and  Nature  to  prevent 
the  extension  of  the  institution  of  human  bondage,  the  two  great  forces  of  Liberty  and 
Slavery  were  in  deadly  and  irrepressible  conflict,  —  with  all  the  powers  of  the  Govern- 
ment on  the  side  of  Slavery.  That  struggle  reached  its  last  peaceable  stage  in  the  tri- 
umph of  Freedom  in  Kansas  and  the  election  of  Lincoln  to  the  Presidency." 

Mr.  Grow  mistakes  the  relative  positions  of  the  slavery  question  in  1850  and  1861. 
When  Mr.  Webster  was  willing  to  waive  the  anti-slavery  clause  in  the  bill  organizing 
the  Territories  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah,  all  the  Territories  to  the  North  were  already 
protected  from  slavery  by  the  general  prohibition  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  in  1820, 
and  by  the  specific  prohibition  in  the  Oregon  bill  of  1848.  To  Mr.  Webster's  view,  in 
1850  Kansas  was  as  secure  against  the  introduction  of  slavery  as  it  was  to  Mr.  Grow's 
view  in  1861  after  Mr.  Lincoln  was  chosen  President  and  the  Free  State  men  had  won 
their  victory  on  the  soil  of  the  Territory.  Mr.  Webster  saw  before  him  therefore  a  long 
procession  of  States  in  the  North-West  whose  free  institutions  were  assured  by  the  abso- 

677 


678  ADDENDUM. 

lute  inhibition  of  Slavery.  He  was  in  the  midst  of  a  heated  and  hated  controversy  over 
two  Territories  adapted  only  to  mining  and  grazing  and  never  likely  to  attract  slave 
labor.  Neither  he  nor  any  other  person  at  that  time  imagined  the  possibility  of  repeal- 
ing the  Missouri  Compromise;  and  therefore  when  all  the  territory  north  of  36°  30'  was 
secured  by  a  prohibition  as  absolute  as  Congress  could  make  it,  Mr.  Webster  did  not 
consider  it  necessary  to  wage  a  bitter  contest  and  possibly  endanger  the  Union  of  the 
States  merely  to  secure  a  prohibition  of  slavery  in  two  Territories  where  he  believed 
the  institution  could  not  go.  Precisely  in  the  same  way  Mr.  Grow  did  not  believe  that 
slavery  would  go  into  Colorado,  Dakota,  and  Nevada,  and  he  was  therefore  willing  to 
waive  the  anti-slavery  clause  rather  than  add  to  the  danger  of  disunion  by  insisting  on  it. 

The  same  motives  that  inspired  Mr.  Webster  in  1850,  inspired  Mr.  Seward,  Mr. 
Wade,  and  Mr.  Grow  in  1861.  It  is  seldom  that  history  so  exactly  repeats  itself;  but  the 
mention  of  the  coincidence  was  not  designed  as  a  criticism,  much  less  a  condemnation 
of  the  course  of  the  statesmen  who  wisely  and  bravely  met  their  responsibilities  in  1861. 
It  was  simply  a  protest  against  the  injustice  that  had  been  visited  upon  Mr.  Webster  for 
a  like  patriotic  course  in  1850. 

If  the  Southern  agitators  had  resorted  to  secession  and  brought  on  civil  war  in  1850 
the  efforts  of  Mr.  Webster  to  avert  the  calamity  would  have  received  unstinted  praise 
from  all  classes  in  the  North.  If  no  secession  had  been  attempted  and  no  civil  war  had 
followed  in  1861,  and  the  South  remaining  in  the  Union  had  resumed  the  old  contest  for 
the  rights  of  Slavery  in  the  Territories,  Mr.  Seward,  Mr.  Grow  and  their  associates  would 
have  received  unlimited  censure  as  "  dough  faces  "  who  had  yielded  to  Southern  threats 
and  consented  to  organize  three  Territories  without  an  anti-slavery  proviso.  In  each  in- 
stance the  subsequent  course  of  events  determined  the  popularity  or  unpopularity  of 
similar  acts  performed  with  similar  motives,  —  acts  altogether  honorable,  motives  alto- 
gether patriotic  in  both  cases. 


OMISSION. 


The  names  of  the  distinguished  counsel  on  both  sides  who  appeared  before  the 
International  Tribunal  at  Geneva  in  1871,  were  accidentally  omitted  from  the  foot-note 
on  page  498,  Volume  II.  Sir  Roundell  Palmer,  afterwards  Lord  Chancellor  (known  as 
Lord  Selborne),  was  sole  counsel  for  the  British  cause,  but  was  assisted  throughout  the 
hearing  by  Professor  Montagu  Bernard  and  by  Mr.  Cohen.  The  American  counsel,  as 
eminent  as  could  be  selected  from  the  American  bar,  were  William  M.  Evarts,  Caleb 
Cushing,  and  Morrison  R.  Waite. 


NOTE.  —  An  error  of  statement  occurs  on  page  72,  Volume  I.,  in  regard  to  the  action 
of  the  Whig  caucus  for  Speaker  in  December,  1847.  Mr.  Winthrop  was  chosen  after  Mr. 
Vinton  had  declined,  and  was  warmly  supported  by  Mr.  Vinton.  The  error  came  from 
an  incorrect  account  of  the  caucus  in  a  newspaper  of  that  time. 


ERRATA. 


Vol.  I.    p.    90.     Line  6.     "Arthur"  should  read  "Andrew." 

"       "146.     Line  2.     "  Absolute  "  should  read  "  ultimate." 

"  "171.  Close  of  first  paragraph  should  read  thus  :  "  Breckinridge 
carried  every  slave  State  except  four, — Virginia,  Ken- 
tucky and  Tennessee  voting  for  Bell,  and  Missouri 
voting  for  Douglas. 

"  "197.  Line  5  of  second  paragraph.  "  McKee  Dunn"  should 
read  "  George  G.  Dunn." 

"  "  301.  Baillie  Peyton  is  erroneously  described  as  uniting  with  the 
South.  He  remained  true  to  the  Union  throughout  the 
contest. 

"  "  321.  An  anachronism  occurs  in  stating  that  Senator  Baker  of 
Oregon  had  witnessed  as  a  child  the  funeral  pageant 
of  Lord  Nelson.  He  was  not  born  for  five  years  after 
Lord  Nelson  fell.  The  error  was  taken  from  a  eulogy 
pronounced  on  Senator  Baker  after  his  death.  The 
occurrence  referred  to  was  doubtless  some  one  of  the 
many  military  pageants  in  London  at  the  close  of 
the  Napoleonic  wars. 

"  "  344.  It  should  be  stated  that  the  so-called  "  California  "  regi- 
ment of  Colonel  Baker  was  recruited  principally  in 
Philadelphia  from  the  young  men  of  that  city. 

"  "  375.  Line  11,  second  paragraph.  "Edward"  should  read 
"  Edwin  H." 

"       "  452.     Line  7.     "  16th  "  should  read  "  13th." 

"  "  542.  Fourth  line  from  bottom.  For  "  Chicago  "  read  "  Balti- 
more." 

Vol.  II.  p.  118.  There  should  be  a  foot-note  to  the  name  of  William  Pitt 
Fessenden,  thus:  "Resigned.  Succeeded  by  Nathan 
A.  Farwell." 

"       "  224.     "  Fincklenberg  "  should  be  "  Finkelnburg." 

257.     "  Dodge  of  Iowa  "  should  read  "  Dodge  of  New  York." 

679 


u 


THE    APPENDICES. 


APPENDIX   A. 

RECONSTRUCTION  ACT  OF  THIRTY-NINTH  CONGRESS. 

AN  ACT  TO  PROVIDE  FOB  THE  MORE  EFFICIENT  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  REBEL 

STATES. 

Whereas  no  legal  State  governments  or  adequate  protection  for  life  or  property  now 
exist  in  the  rebel  States  of  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Missis- 
sippi, Alabama,  Louisiana,  Florida,  Texas,  and  Arkansas;  and  whereas  it  is  necessary 
that  peace  and  good  order  should  be  enforced  in  said  States  until  loyal  and  republican 
State  governments  can  be  legally  established :  Therefore 

•  Be  it  enacted,  &c.,  That  said  rebel  States  shall  be  divided  into  military  districts  and 
made  subject  to  the  military  authority  of  the  United  States,  as  hereinafter  prescribed, 
and  for  that  purpose  Virginia  .shall  constitute  the  first  district;  North  Carolina  and 
South  Carolina  the  second  district;  Georgia,  Alabama,  and  Florida  the  third  district; 
Mississippi  and  Arkansas  the  fourth  district;  and  Louisiana  and  Texas  the  fifth 
district. 

SEC.  2.  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  President  to  assign  to  the  command  of  each 
of  said  districts  an  officer  of  the  army,  not  below  the  rank  of  brigadier-general,  and  to 
detail  a  sufficient  military  force  to  enable  such  officer  to  perform  his  duties  and  enforce 
his  authority  within  the  district  to  which  he  is  assigned. 

SEC.  3.  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  each  officer  assigned  as  aforesaid  to  protect  all 
persons  in  their  rights  of  person  and  property,  to  suppress  insurrection,  disorder,  and 
violence,  and  to  punish,  or  cause  to  be  punished,  all  disturbers  of  the  public  peace  and 
criminals,  and  to  this  end  he  may  allow  local  civil  tribunals  to  take  jurisdiction ,  of 
and  to  try  offenders,  or,  when  in  his  judgment  it  may  be  necessary  for  the  trial  of 
offenders,  he  shall  have  power  to  organize  military  commissions  or  tribunals  for  that 
purpose;  and  all  interference  under  color  of  State  authority  with  the  exercise  of  mili- 
tary authority  under  this  act  shall  be  null  and  void. 

SEC.  4.  That  all  persons  put  under  military  arrest  by  virtue  of  this  act  shall  be 
tried  without  unnecessary  delay,  and  no  cruel  or  unusual  punishment  shall  be  inflicted; 
and  no  sentence  of  any  military  commission  or  tribunal  hereby  authorized,  affecting 
the  life  or  liberty  of  any  person,  shall  be  executed  until  it  is  approved  by  the  officer  in 
command  of  the  district,  and  the  laws  and  regulations  for  the  government  of  the  army 
shall  not  be  affected  by  this  act,  except  in  so  far  as  they  conflict  with  its  provisions : 
Provided,  That  no  sentence  of  death  under  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  be  carried 
into  effect  without  the  approval  of  the  President. 

SEC.  5.    That  when  the  people  of  any  one  of  said  rebel  States  shall  have  formed  a 

681 


682  APPENDIX. 

constitution  of  government  in  conformity  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
in  all  respects,  framed  by  a  convention  of  delegates  elected  by  the  male  citizens  of  said 
State  twenty-one  years  old  and  upward,  of  whatever  race,  color,  or  previous  condition, 
who  have  been  resident  in  said  State  for  one  year  previous  to  the  day  of  such  election, 
except  such  as  may  be  disfranchised  for  participation  in  the  rebellion,  or  for  felony  at 
common  law,  and  when  such  constitution  shall  provide  that  the  elective  franchise  shall 
be  enjoyed  by  all  such  persons  as  have  the  qualifications  herein  stated  for  electors  of 
delegates,  and  when  such  constitution  shall  be  ratified  by  a  majority  of  the  persons 
voting  on  the  question  of  ratification  who  are  qualified  as  electors  for  delegates,  and 
when  such  constitution  shall  have  been  submitted  to  Congress  for  examination  and 
approval,  and  Congress  shall  have  approved  the  same,  and  when  said  State,  by  a  vote 
of  its  legislature  elected  under  said  constitution,  shall  have  adopted  the  amendment  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  proposed  by  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress,  and 
known  as  article  fourteen,  and  when  said  article  shall  have  become  a  part  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  said  State  shall  be  declared  entitled  to  representation  in 
Congress,  and  Senators  and  Representatives  shall  be  admitted  therefrom  on  their 
taking  the  oaths  prescribed  by  law,  and  then  and  thereafter  the  preceding  sections  of 
this  act  shall  be  inoperative  in  said  State:  Provided,  That  no  person  excluded  from 
the  privilege  of  holding  office  by  said  proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  shall  be  eligible  to  election  as  a  member  of  the  convention  to  frame  a 
constitution  for  any  of  said  rebel  States,  nor  shall  any  such  person  vote  for  members 
of  such  convention. 

SEC.  6.  That  until  the  people  of  said  rebel  States  shall  be  by  law  admitted  to  repre- 
sentation in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  any  civil  governments  which  may  exist 
therein  shall  be  deemed  provisional  only,  and  in  all  respects  subject  to  the  paramount 
authority  of  the  United  States  at  any  time  to  abolish,  modify,  control,  or  supersede  the 
same ;  and  in  all  elections  to  any  office  under  such  provisional  governments  all  persons 
shall  be  entitled  to  vote,  and  none  others,  who  are  entitled  to  vote  under  the  provisions 
of  the  fifth  section  of  this  act;  and  no  person  shall  be  eligible  to  any  office  under  any 
such  provisional  governments  who  would  be  disqualified  from  holding  office  under  the 
provisions  of  the  third  article  of  said  constitutional  amendment. 

SUPPLEMENTARY  RECONSTRUCTION  ACT  OF  FORTIETH  CONGRESS. 

AN  ACT  SUPPLEMENTARY  TO  AN  ACT  ENTITLED  "AN  ACT  TO  PROVIDE  FOR  THE 
MORE  EFFICIENT  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  REBEL  STATES,"  PASSED  MARCH  SEC- 
OND, EIGHTEEN  HUNDRED  AND  SIXTY-SEVEN,  AND  TO  FACILITATE  RESTORA- 
TION. 

Be  it  enacted,  &c.,  That  before  the  first  day  of  September,  eighteen  hundred  and 
sixty-seven,  the  commanding  general  in  each  district  defined  by  an  act  entitled  "An 
act  to  provide  for  the  more  efficient  government  of  the  rebel  States,"  passed  March 
second,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty-seven,  shall  cause  a  registration  to  be  made  of  the 
male  citizens  of  the  United  States,  twenty-one  years  of  age  and  upwards,  resident  in 
each  county  or  parish  in  the  State  or  States  included  in  his  district,  which  registration 
shall  include  only  those  persons  who  are  qualified  to  vote  for  delegates  by  the  act  afore- 
said, and  who  shall  have  taken  and  subscribed  the  following  oath  or  affirmation:  "I, 

,  do  solemnly  swear,  (or  affirm,)  in  the  presence  of  Almighty  God,  that  I  am  a 

citizen  of  the  State  of ;  that  I  have  resided  in  said  State  for months  next 

preceding  this  day,  and  now  reside  in  the  county  of ,  or  the  parish  of ,  in 

said  State,  (as  the  case  may  be;)  that  I  am  twenty-one  years  old;  that  I  have  not  been 
disfranchised  for  participation  in  any  rebellion  or  civil  war  against  the  United  States, 


APPENDIX.  683 

nor  for  felony  committed  against  the  laws  of  any  State  or  of  the  United  States;  that  I 
have  never  been  a  member  of  any  State  legislature,  nor  held  any  executive  or  judicial 
office  in  any  State  and  afterwards  engaged  in  insurrection  or  rebellion  against  the 
United  States,  or  given  aid  or  comfort  to  the  enemies  thereof;  that  I  have  never  taken 
an  oath  as  a  member  of  Congress  of  the  United  States,  or  as  an  officer  of  the  United 
States,  or  as  a  member  of  any  State  legislature,  or  as  an  executive  or  judicial  officer  of 
any  State,  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  afterwards  engaged 
in  insurrection  or  rebellion  against  the  United  States  or  given  aid  or  comfort  to  the 
enemies  thereof;  that  I  will  faithfully  support  the  Constitution  and  obey  the  laws  of 
the  United  States,  and  will,  to  the  best  of  my  ability,  encourage  others  so  to  do,  so 
help  me  God;"  which  oath  or  affirmation  may  be  administered  by  any  registering 
officer. 

SEC.  2.  That  after  the  completion  of  the  registration  hereby  provided  for  in  any 
State,  at  such  time  and  places  therein  as  the  commanding  general  shall  appoint  and 
direct,  of  which  at  least  thirty  days'  public  notice  shall  be  given,  an  election  shall  be 
held  of  delegates  to  a  convention  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a  constitution  and 
civil  government  for  such  State  loyal  to  the  Union,  said  convention  in  each  State,  ex- 
cept Virginia,  to  consist  of  the  same  number  of  members  as  the  most  numerous  branch 
of  the  State  legislature  of  such  State  in  the  year  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty,  to  be 
apportioned  among  the  several  districts,  counties,  or  parishes  of  such  State  by  the 
commanding  general,  giving  to  each  representation  in  the  ratio  of  voters  registered  as 
aforesaid,  as  nearly  as  may  be.  The  convention  in  Virginia  shall  consist  of  the  same 
number  of  members  as  represented  the  territory  now  constituting  Virginia  in  the  most 
numerous  branch  of  the  legislature  of  said  State  in  the  year  eighteen  hundred  and 
sixty,  to  be  apportioned  as  aforesaid. 

SEC.  3.  That  at  said  election  the  registered  voters  of  each  State  shall  vote  for  or 
against  a  convention  to  form  a  constitution  therefor  under  this  act.  Those  voting  in 
favor  of  such  a  convention  shall  have  written  or  printed  on  the  ballots  by  which  they 
vote  for  delegates,  as  aforesaid,  the  words  "For  a  convention,"  and  those  voting 
against  such  a  convention  shall  have  written  or  printed  on  such  ballots  the  words 
"  Against  a  convention."  The  person  appointed  to  superintend  said  election,  and  to 
make  return  of  the  votes  given  thereat,  as  herein  provided,  shall  count  and  make 
return  of  the  votes  given  for  and  against  a  convention;  and  the  commanding  general 
to  whom  the  same  shall  have  been  returned  shall  ascertain  and  declare  the  total  vote 
in  each  State  for  and  against  a  convention.  If  a  majority  of  the  votes  given  on  that 
question  shall  be  for  a  convention,  then  such  convention  shall  be  held  as  hereinafter 
provided ;  but  if  a  majority  of  said  votes  shall  be  against  a  convention,  then  no  such 
convention  shall  be  held  under  this  act:  Provided,  That  such  convention  shall  not  be 
held  unless  a  majority  of  all  such  registered  voters  shall  have  voted  on  the  question  of 
holding  such  convention. 

SEC.  4.  That  the  commanding  general  of  each  district  shall  appoint  as  many 
boards  of  registration  as  may  be  necessary,  consisting  of  three  loyal  officers  or  persons, 
to  make  and  complete  the  registration,  superintend  the  election,  and  make  return  to 
him  of  the  votes,  lists  of  voters,  and  of  the  persons  elected  as  delegates  by  a  plurality 
of  the  votes  cast  at  said  election ;  and  upon  receiving  said  returns  he  shall  open  the 
same,  ascertain  the  persons  elected  as  delegates  according  to  the  returns  of  the  officers 
who  conducted  said  election,  and  make  proclamation  thereof;  and  if  a  majority  of  the 
votes  given  on  that  question  shall  be  for  a  convention,  the  commanding  general,  within 
sixty  days  from  the  date  of  election,  shall  notify  the  delegates  to  assemble  in  conven- 
tion, at  a  time  and  place  to  be  mentioned  in  the  notification,  and  said  convention, 
when  organized,  shall  proceed  to  frame  a  constitution  and  civil  government  according 


684  APPENDIX. 

to  the  provisions  of  this  act  and  the  act  to  which  it  is  supplementary;  and  when  the 
same  shall  have  been  so  framed,  said  constitution  shall  be  submitted  by  the  convention 
for  ratification  to  the  persons  registered  under  the  provisions  of  this  act  at  an  election 
to  be  conducted  by  the  officers  or  persons  appointed  or  to  be  appointed  by  the  com- 
manding general,  as  hereinbefore  provided,  and  to  be  held  after  the  expiration  of  thirty 
days  from  the  date  of  notice  thereof,  to  be  given  by  said  convention;  and  the  returns 
thereof  shall  be  made  to  the  commanding  general  of  the  district. 

SEC.  5.  That  if,  according  to  said  returns,  the  constitution  shall  be  ratified  by  a 
majority  of  the  votes  of  the  registered  electors  qualified  as  herein  specified,  cast  at  said 
election,  (at  least  one  half  of  all  the  registered  voters  voting  upon  the  question  of  such 
ratification,)  the  president  of  the  convention  shall  transmit  a  copy  of  the  same,  duly 
certified,  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  who  shall  forthwith  transmit  the  same 
to  Congress,  if  then  in  session,  and  if  not  in  session,  then  immediately  upon  its  next 
assembling;  and  if  it  shall,  moreover,  appear  to  Congress  that  the  election  was  one  at 
which  all  the  registered  and  qualified  electors  in  the  State  had  an  opportunity  to  vote 
freely  and  without  restraint,  fear,  or  the  influence  of  fraud,  and  if  the  .Congress  shall 
be  satisfied  that  such  constitution  meets  the  approval  of  a  majority  of  all  the  qualified 
electors  in  the  State,  and  if  the  said  constitution  shall  be  declared  by  Congress  to  be  in 
conformity  with  the  provisions  of  the  act  to  which  this  is  supplementary,  and  the  other 
provisions  of  said  act  shall  have  been  complied  with,  and  the  said  constitution  shall  be 
approved  by  Congress,  the  State  shall  be  declared  entitled  to  representation,  and  Sena- 
tors and  Representatives  shall  be  admitted  therefrom  as  therein  provided. 

SEC.  6.  That  all  elections  in  the  States  mentioned  "in  the  said  "Act  to  provide  for 
the  more  efficient  government  of  the  rebel  States,"  shall,  during  the  operation  of  said 
act,  be  by  ballot ;  and  all  officers  making  the  said  registration  of  voters  and  conducting 
said  elections  shall,  before  entering  upon  the  discharge  of  their  duties,  take  and  sub- 
scribe the  oath  prescribed  by  the  act  approved  July  second,  eighteen  hundred  and 
sixty-two,  entitled  "An  act  to  prescribe  an  oath  of  office:"1  Provided,  That  if  any 
person  shall  knowingly  and  falsely  take  and  subscribe  any  oath  in  this  act  prescribed, 
such  person  so  offending  and  being  thereof  duly  convicted,  shall  be  subject  to  the 
pains,  penalties,  and  disabilities  which  by  law  are  provided  for  the  punishment  of 
the  crime  of  wilful  and  corrupt  perjury. 

SEC.  7.    That  all  expenses  incurred  by  the  several  commanding  generals,  or  by 

i  This  act  is  in  these  words :  — 

Be  it  enacted,  t&c.,  That  hereafter  every  person  elected  or  appointed  to  any  office  of  honor  or  profit 
under  the  Government  of  the  United  States  either  in  the  civil,  military,  or  naval  departments  of  the 
public  service,  excepting  the  President  of  the  United  States,  shall,  before  entering  upon  the  duties  of  such 
office,  and  before  being  entitled  to  any  of  the  salary  or  other  emoluments  thereof,  take  and  subscribe  the 
following  oath  or  affirmation:  "I,  A  B,  do  solemnly  swear  (or  affirm),  that  I  have  never  voluntarily 
borne  arms  against  the  United  States  since  I  have  been  a  citizen  thereof;  that  I  have  voluntarily  given  no 
aid,  countenance,  counsel,  or  encouragement  to  persons  engaged  in  armed  hostility  thereto;  that  I  have 
never  sought  nor  accepted  nor  attempted  to  exercise  the  functions  of  any  office  whatever,  under  any 
authority  or  pretended  authority,  in  hostility  to  the  United  States ;  that  I  have  not  yielded  a  voluntary 
support  to  any  pretended  government,  authority,  power,  or  constitution  within  the  United  States,  hostile 
or  inimical  thereto;  and  I  do  further  swear  (or  affirm)  that,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  ability,  I 
will  support  and  defend  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  against  all  enemies,  foreign  and  domestic; 
that  I  will  bear  true  faith  and  allegiance  to  the  same;  that  I  take  this  obligation  freely,  without  any 
mental  reservation  or  purpose  of  evasion,  and  that  I  will  well  and  faithfully  discharge  the  duties  of  the 
office  on  which  I  am  about  to  enter;  so  help  me  God; "  which  said  oath,  so  taken  and  signed,  shall  be 
preserved  among  the  files  of  the  Court,  House  of  Congress,  or  Department  to  which  the  said  office  may 
appertain.  And  any  person  who  shall  falsely  take  the  said  oath  shall  be  guilty  of  perjury,  and  on  con- 
viction, in  addition  to  the  penalties  now  prescribed  for  that  offense,  shall  be  deprived  of  his  office,  and 
rendered  incapable  forever  after,  of  holding  any  office  or  place  under  the  United  States. 


APPENDIX.  685 

virtue  of  any  orders  issued,  or  appointments  made,  by  them,  under  or  by  virtue  of  this 
act,  shall  be  paid  out  of  any  moneys  in  the  treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated. 

SEC.  8.  That  the  convention  for  each  State  shall  prescribe  the  fees,  salary,  and 
compensation  to  be  paid  to  all  delegates  and  other  officers  and  agents  herein  author- 
ized or  necessary  to  carry  into  effect  the  purposes  of  this  act  not  herein  otherwise  pro- 
vided for,  and  shall  provide  for  the  levy  and  collection  of  such  taxes  on  the  property 
in  such  State  as  may  be  necessary  to  pay  the  same. 

SEC.  9.  That  the  word  article,  in  the  sixth  section  of  the  act  to  which  this  is 
supplementary,  shall  be  construed  to  mean  section. 

SUPPLEMENTARY  RECONSTRUCTION  ACT  OF  JULY  19,  1867. 

AN  ACT  SUPPLEMENTARY  TO  AN  ACT  ENTITLED  "AN  ACT  TO  PROVIDE  FOR  THE 
MORE  EFFICIENT  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  REBEL  STATES,"  PASSED  ON  THE 
SECOND  DAY  OF  MARCH,  1867,  AND  THE  ACT  SUPPLEMENTARY  THERETO. 
PASSED  ON  THE  23D  DAY  OF  MARCH,  1867. 

Be  it  enacted,  cfcc.,  That  it  is  hereby  declared  to  have  been  the  true  intent  and 
meaning  of  the  act  of  the  2d  day  of  March,  1867,  entitled  "  An  act  to  provide  for  the 
more  efficient  government  of  the  rebel  States,"  and  of  the  act  supplementary  thereto, 
passed  on  the  23d  day  of  March,  1867,  that  the  governments  then  existing  in  the  rebel 
States  of  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Mississippi,  Alabama, 
Louisiana,  Florida,  Texas,  and  Arkansas,  were  not  legal  State  governments;  and  that 
thereafter  said  governments,  if  continued,  were  to  be  continued  subject  in  all  respects 
to  the  military  commanders  of  the  respective  districts,  and  to  the  paramount  authority 
of  Congress. 

SEC.  2.  That  the  commander  of  any  district  named  in  said  act  shall  have  power, 
subject  to  the  disapproval  of  the  General  of  the  army  of  the  United  States,  and  to  have 
effect  till  disapproved,  whenever  in  the  opinion  of  such  commander  the  proper  admin- 
istration of  said  act  shall  require  it,  to  suspend  or  remove  from  office,  or  from  the  per- 
formance of  official  duties  and  the  exercise  of  official  powers,  any  officer  or  person 
holding  or  exercising,  or  professing  to  hold  or  exercise,  any  civil  or  military  office  or 
duty  in  such  district  under  any  power,  election,  appointment,  or  authority  derived  from, 
or  granted  by,  or  claimed  under,  any  so-called  State  or  the  government  thereof,  or  any 
municipal  or  other  division  thereof;  and  upon  such  suspension  or  removal  such  com- 
mander, subject  to  the  disapproval  of  the  General  as  aforesaid,  shall  have  power  to 
provide  from  time  to  time  for  the  performance  of  the  said  duties  of  such  officer  or 
person  so  suspended  or  removed,  by  the  detail  of  some  competent  officer  or  soldier  of 
the  army,  or  by  the  appointment  of  some  other  person  to  perform  the  same,  and  to  fill 
vacancies  occasioned  by  death,  resignation,  or  otherwise. 

SEC.  3.  That  the  General  of  the  army  of  the  United  States  shall  be  invested  with 
all  the  powers  of  suspension,  removal,  appointment,  and  detail  granted  in  the  preced- 
ing section  to  district  commanders. 

SEC.  4.  That  the  acts  of  the  officers  of  the  army  already  done  in  removing  in  said 
districts  persons  exercising  the  functions  of  civil  officers,  and  appointing  others  in  their 
stead,  are  hereby  confirmed:  Provided,  That  any  person  heretofore  or  hereafter  ap- 
pointed by  any  district  commander  to  exercise  the  functions  of  any  civil  office,  may  be 
removed  either  by  the  military  officer  in  command  of  the  district,  or  by  the  General  of 
the  army.  And  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  such  commander  to  remove  from  office,  as  afore- 
said, all  persons  who  are  disloyal  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  or  who  use 
their  official  influence  in  any  manner  to  hinder,  delay,  prevent,  or  obstruct  the  due  and 
proper  administration  of  this  act  and  the  acts  to  which  it  is  supplementary. 


686  APPENDIX. 

SEC.  5.  That  the  boards  of  registration  provided  for  in  the  act  entitled  "  An  act 
supplementary  to  an  act  entitled  '  An  act  to  provide  for  the  more  efficient  government 
of  the  rebel  States,'  passed  March  2,  1867,  and  to  facilitate  restoration,"  passed  March 
23,  1867,  shall  have  power,  and  it  shall  be  their  duty,  before  allowing  the  registration 
of  any  person,  to  ascertain,  upon  such  facts  or  information  as  they  can  obtain,  whether 
such  person  is  entitled  to  be  registered  under  said  act,  and  the  oath  required  by  said 
act  shall  not  be  conclusive  on  such  question,  and  no  person  shall  be  registered  unless 
such  board  shall  decide  that  he  is  entitled  thereto;  and  such  board  shall  also  have  power 
to  examine,  under  oath,  (to  be  administered  by  any  member  of  such  board,)  any  one 
touching  the  qualification  of  any  person  claiming  registration;  but  in  every  case  of 
refusal  by  the  board  to  register  an  applicant,  and  in  every  case  of  striking  his  name 
from  the  list  as  hereinafter  provided,  the  board  shall  make  a  note  or  memorandum, 
which  shall  be  returned  with  the  registration  list  to  the  commanding  general  of  the  dis- 
trict, setting  forth  the  grounds  of  such  refusal  or  such  striking  from  the  list:  Provided, 
That  no  person  shall  be  disqualified  as  member  of  any  board  of  registration  by  reason 
of  race  or  color. 

SEC.  6.  That  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  oath  prescribed  in  said  supple- 
mentary act  is,  (among  other  things,)  that  no  person  who  has  been  a  member  of  the 
Legislature  of  any  State,  or  who  has  held  any  executive  or  judicial  office  in  any  State, 
whether  he  has  taken  an  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  or  not, 
and  whether  he  was  holding  such  office  at  the  commencement  of  the  rebellion,  or  had 
held  it  before,  and  who  has  afterwards  engaged  in  insurrection  or  rebellion  against  the 
United  States,  or  given  aid  or  comfort  to  the  enemies  thereof,  is  entitled  to  be  registered 
or  to  vote;  and  the  words  "executive  or  judicial  office  in  any  State"  in  said  oath 
mentioned  shall  be  construed  to  include  all  civil  offices  created  by  law  for  the  adminis- 
tration of  any  general  law  of  a  State,  or  for  the  administration  of  justice. 

SEC.  7.  That  the  time  for  completing  the  original  registration  provided  for  in  said 
act  may,  in  the  discretion  of  the  commander  of  any  district,  be  extended  to  the  1st  day 
of  October,  1867;  and  the  boards  of  registration  shall  have  power,  and  it  shall  be  their 
duty,  commencing  fourteen  days  prior  to  any  election  under  said  act,  and  upon  reason- 
able public  notice  of  the  time  and  place  thereof,  to  revise,  for  a  period  of  five  days,  the 
registration  lists,  and,  upon  being  satisfied  that  any  person  not  entitled  thereto  has 
been  registered,  to  strike  the  name  of  such  person  from  the  list,  and  such  person  shall 
not  be  allowed  to  vote.  And  such  board  shall  also,  during  the  same  period,  add  to  such 
registry  the  names  of  all  persons  who  at  that  time  possess  the  qualifications  required  by 
said  act  who  have  not  been  already  registered ;  and  no  person  shall,  at  any  time,  be 
entitled  to  be  registered  or  to  vote,  by  reason  of  any  executive  pardon  or  amnesty,  for 
any  act  or  thing  which,  without  such  pardon  or  amnesty,  would  disqualify  him  from 
registration  or  voting. 

SEC.  8.  That  section  four  of  said  last-named  act  shall  be  construed  to  authorize 
the  commanding  general  named  therein,  whenever  he  shall  deem  it  needful,  to  remove 
any  member  of  a  board  of  registration  and  to  appoint  another  in  his  stead,  and  to  fill 
any  vacancy  in  such  board. 

SEC.  9.  That  all  members  of  said  boards  of  registration,  and  all  persons  hereafter 
elected  or  appointed  to  office  in  said  military  districts,  under  any  so-called  State  or 
municipal  authority,  or  by  detail  or  appointment  of  the  district  commanders,  shall  be 
required  to  take  and  to  subscribe  the  oath  of  office  prescribed  by  law  for  officers  of  the 
United  States. 

SEC.  10.  That  no  district  commander  or  member  of  the  board  of  registration,  or 
any  of  the  officers  or  appointees  acting  under  them,  shall  be  bound  in  his  action  by  any 
opinion  of  any  civil  officer  of  the  United  States. 


APPENDIX.  687 

SEC.  11.  That  all  the  provisions  of  this  act  and  of  the  acts  to  which  this  is  supple- 
mentary shall  be  construed  liberally,  to  the  end  that  all  the  intents  thereof  may  be  fully 
and  perfectly  carried  out. 

AMENDATORY  RECONSTRUCTION  ACT  OF  MARCH  11,  1868. 

AN  ACT  TO  AMEND  THE  ACT  PASSED  MARCH  23,  1867,  ENTITLED  "  AN  ACT  SUP- 
PLEMENTARY TO  'AN  ACT  TO  PROVIDE  FOR  THE  MORE  EFFICIENT  GOVERN- 
MENT OF  THE  REBEL  STATES,'  PASSED  MARCH  2,  1867,  AND  TO  FACILITATE 
THEIR  RESTORATION." 

Be  it  enacted,  &c.,  That  hereafter  any  election  authorized  by  the  act  passed  March 
23,  1867,  entitled  "  An  act  supplementary  to  '  An  act  to  provide  for  the  more  efficient 
government  of  the  rebel  States,'  passed  March  2,  1867,  and  to  facilitate  their  restora- 
tion," shall  be  decided  by  a  majority  of  the  votes  actually  cast;  and  at  the  election  in 
which  the  question  of  the  adoption  or  rejection  of  any  constitution  is  submitted,  any 
person  duly  registered  in  the  State  may  vote  in  the  election  district  where  he  offers  to 
vote  when  he  has  resided  therein  for  ten  days  next  preceding  such  election,  upon  pre- 
sentation of  his  certificate  of  registration,  his  affidavit,  or  other  satisfactory  evidence, 
under  such  regulations  as  the  district  commanders  may  prescribe. 

SEC.  2.  That  the  constitutional  convention  of  any  of  the  States  mentioned  in  the 
acts  to  which  this  is  amendatory  may  provide  that  at  the  time  of  voting  upon  the  rati- 
fication of  the  constitution,  the  registered  voters  may  vote  also  for  members  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States,  and  for  all  elective  officers  provided  for 
by  the  said  constitution ;  and  the  same  election  officers,  who  shall  make  the  return  of 
the  votes  cast  on  the  ratification  or  rejection  of  the  constitution,  shall  enumerate  and 
certify  the  votes  cast  for  members  of  Congress. 


APPENDIX    B. 

AN  ACT  REGULATING  THE   TENURE  OF  CERTAIN  CIVIL  OFFICES. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States 
of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  every  person  holding  any  civil  office  to  which 
he  has  been  appointed  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  every 
person  who  shall  hereafter  be  appointed  to  any  such  office,  and  shall  become  duly 
qualified  to  act  therein,  is,  and  shall  be,  entitled  to  hold  such  office  until  a  successor 
shall  have  been  in  like  manner  appointed  and  duly  qualified,  except  as  herein  other- 
wise provided :  Provided,  That  the  Secretaries  of  State,  of  the  Treasury,  of  War,  of 
the  Navy,  and  of  the  Interior,  the  Postmaster  General,  and  the  Attorney  General 
shall  hold  their  offices  respectively  for  and  during  the  term  of  the  President  by  whom 
they  may  have  been  appointed,  and  for  one  month  thereafter,  subject  to  removal  by 
and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate. 

SEC.  2.  That  when  any  officer  appointed  as  aforesaid,  excepting  judges  of  the 
United  States  courts,  shall,  during  the  recess  of  the  Senate,  be  shown,  by  evidence 
satisfactory  to  the  President,  to  be  guilty  of  misconduct  in  office,  or  crime,  or  for  any 
reason  shall  become  incapable  or  legally  disqualified  to  perform  its  duties,  in  such  case, 
and  in  no  other,  the  President  may  suspend  such  officer,  and  designate  some  suitable 
person  to  perform  temporarily  the  duties  of  such  office  until  the  next  meeting  of  the 
Senate,  and  until  the  case  shall  be  acted  upon  by  the  Senate;  and  such  person,  so 


688  APPENDIX. 

designated,  shall  take  the  oaths  and  give  the  bonds  required  by  law  to  be  taken  and 
given  by  the  person  duly  appointed  to  fill  such  office;  and  in  such  case  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  President,  within  twenty  days  after  the  first  day  of  such  next  meeting  of 
the  Senate,  to  report  to  the  Senate  such  suspension,  with  the  evidence  and  reasons 
for  his  action  in  the  case  and  the  name  of  the  person  so  designated  to  perform  the 
duties  of  such  office.  And  if  the  Senate  shall  concur  in  such  suspension,  and  advise 
and  consent  to  the  removal  of  such  officer,  they  shall  so  certify  to  the  President,  who 
may  thereupon  remove  such  officer,  and,  by  and  writh  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate,  appoint  another  person  to  such  office.  But  if  the  Senate  shall  refuse  to  con- 
cur in  such  suspension,  such  officer  so  suspended  shall  forthwith  resume  the  functions 
of  his  office,  and  the  powers  of  the  person  so  performing  its  duties  in  his  stead  shall 
cease,  and  the  official  salary  and  emoluments  of  such  officer  shall,  during  such  suspen- 
sion, belong  to  the  person  so  performing  the  duties  thereof,  and  not  to  the  officer  so 
suspended:  Provided,  however,  That  the  President,  in  case  he  shall  become  satisfied 
that  such  suspension  was  made  on  insufficient  grounds,  shall  be  authorized,  at  any 
time  before  reporting  such  suspension  to  the  Senate  as  above  provided,  to  revoke  such 
suspension  and  reinstate  such  officer  in  the  performance  of  the  duties  of  his  office. 

SEC.  3.  That  the  President  shall  have  power  to  fill  all  vacancies  which  may  happen 
during  the  recess  of  the  Senate,  by  reason  of  death  or  resignation,  by  granting  com- 
missions which  shall  expire  at  the  end  of  their  next  session  thereafter.  And  if  no 
appointment,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  shall  be  made  to  such 
office  so  vacant  or  temporarily  filled  as  aforesaid  during  such  next  session  of  the  Sen- 
ate, such  office  shall  remain  in  abeyance  without  any  salary,  fees,  or  emoluments 
attached  thereto,  until  the  same  shall  be  filled  by  appointment  thereto,  by  and  with 
the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate;  and  during  such  time  all  the  powers  and  duties 
belonging  to  such  office  shall  be  exercised  by  such  other  officer  as  may  by  law  exercise 
such  powers  and  duties  in  case  of  a  vacancy  in  such  office. 

SEC.  4.  That  nothing  in  this  act  contained  shall  be  construed  to  extend  the  term 
of  any  office  the  duration  of  which  is  limited  by  law. 

SEC.  5.  That  if  any  person  shall,  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  act,  accept  any 
appointment  to  or  employment  in  any  office,  or  shall  hold  or  exercise,  or  attempt  to 
hold  or  exercise,  any  such  office  or  employment,  he  shall  be  deemed,  and  is  hereby 
declared  to  be,  guilty  of  a  high  misdemeanor,  and,  upon  trial  and  conviction  thereof, 
he  shall  be  punished  therefor  by  a  fine  not  exceeding  ten  thousand  dollars,  or  by  impris- 
onment not  exceeding  five  years,  or  both  said  punishments,  .in  the  discretion  of  the 
court. 

SEC.  6.  That  every  removal,  appointment,  or  employment  made,  had?  or  exer- 
cised, contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  act,  and  the  making,  signing,  sealing,  counter- 
signing, or  issuing  of  any  commission  or  letter  of  authority  for  or  in  respect  to  any 
such  appointment  or  employment,  shall  be  deemed,  and  are  hereby  declared  to  be,  high 
misdemeanors,  and,  upon  trial  and  conviction  thereof,  every  person  guilty  thereof  shall 
be  punished  by  a  fine  not  exceeding  ten  thousand  dollars,  or  by  imprisonment  not 
exceeding  five  years,  or  both  said  punishments,  in  the  discretion  of  the  court:  Pro- 
vided, That  the  President  shall  have  power  to  make  out  and  deliver,  after  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  Senate,  commissions  for  all  officers  whose  appointment  shall  have  been 
advised  and  consented  to  by  the  Senate. 

SEC.  7.  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate,  at  the  close  of 
each  session  thereof,  to  deliver  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  to  each  of  his 
assistants,  and  to  each  of  the  Auditors,  and  to  each  of  the  Comptrollers  in  the  Treas- 
ury, and  to  the  Treasurer,  and  to  the  Register  of  the  Treasury,  a  full  and  complete 
list,  duly  certified,  of  all  persons  who  shall  have  been  nominated  to  and  rejected  by 


APPENDIX.  689 

the  Senate  during  such  session,  and  a  like  list  of  all  the  offices  to  which  nominations 
shall  have  been  made  and  not  confirmed  and  filled  at  such  session. 

SEC.  8.  That  whenever  the  President  shall,  without  the  advice  and  consent  of 
the  Senate,  designate,  authorize,  or  employ  any  person  to  perform  the  duties  of  any 
office,  he  shall  forthwith  notify  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  thereof,  and  it  shall  be 
the  duty  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  thereupon  to  communicate  such  notice  to  all 
the  proper  accounting  and  disbursing  officers  of  his  Department. 

SEC.  9.  That  no  money  shall  be  paid  or  received  from  the  Treasury,  or  paid  or 
received  from  or  retained  out  of  any  public  moneys  or  funds  of  the  United  States, 
whether  in  the  Treasury  or  not,  to  or  by  or  for  the  benefit  of  any  person  appointed  to 
or  authorized  to  act  in  or  holding  or  exercising  the  duties  or  functions  of  any  office 
contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  act  ;  nor  shall  any  claim,  account,  voucher,  order, 
certificate,  warrant,  or  other  instrument  providing  for  or  relating  to  such  payment, 
receipt,  or  retention,  be  presented,  passed,  allowed,  approved,  certified,  or  paid  by  any 
officer  of  the  United  States,  or  by  any  person  exercising  the  functions  or  performing 
the  duties  of  any  office  or  place  of  trust  under  the  United  States,  for  or  in  respect  to 
such  office,  or  the  exercising  or  performing  the  functions  or  duties  thereof  ;  and  every 
person  who  shall  violate  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of 
a  high  misdemeanor,  and,  upon  trial  and  conviction  thereof,  shall  be  punished  there- 
for by  a  fine  not  exceeding  ten  thousand  dollars,  or  by  imprisonment  not  exceeding  ten 
years,  or  both  said  punishments,  in  the  discretion  of  the  court. 

AN  ACT  TO  AMEND  "AN  ACT  REGULATING  THE   TENURE   OP   CERTAIN  CIVIL 

OFFICES." 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of 
America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  first  and  second  sections  of  an  act  entitled 
"  An  act  regulating  the  tenure  of  certain  civil  offices,"  passed  March  2,  1867,  be,  and 
the  same  are  hereby,  repealed,  and  in  lieu  of  said  repealed  sections  the  following  are 
hereby  enacted : 

That  every  person  holding  any  civil  office  to  which  he  has  been  or  hereafter  may 
be  appointed,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  who  shall  have 
become  duly  qualified  to  act  therein,  shall  be  entitled  to  hold  such  office  during  the 
term  for  which  he  shall  have  been  appointed,  unless  sooner  removed  by  and  with 
the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  or  by  the  appointment,  with  the  like  advice 
and  consent,  of  a  successor  in  his  place,  except  as  herein  otherwise  provided. 

SEC.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  during  any  recess  of  the  Senate  the 
President  is  hereby  empowered,  in  his  discretion,  to  suspend  any  civil  officer  appointed 
by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  except  judges  of  the  United  States 
courts,  until  the  end  of  the  next  session  of  the  Senate,  and  to  designate  some  suitable 
person,  subject  to  be  removed  in  his  discretion  by  the  designation  of  another,  to  per- 
form the  duties  of  such  suspended  officer  in  the  meantime;  and  such  person  so  desig- 
nated shall  take  the  oaths  and  give  the  bonds  required  by  law  to  be  taken  and  given  by 
the  suspended  officer,  and  shall,  during  the  time  he  performs  his  duties,  be  entitled  to 
the  salary  and  emoluments  of  such  office,  no  part  of  which  shall  belong  to  the  officer 
suspended;  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  President  within  thirty  days  after  the  com- 
mencement of  each  session  of  the  Senate,  except  for  any  office  which  in  his  opinion 
ought  not  to  be  filled,  to  nominate  persons  to  fill  all  vacancies  in  office  which  existed 
at  the  meeting  of  the  Senate,  whether  temporarily  filled  or  not,  and  also  in  the  place  of 
all  officers  suspended ;  and  if  the  Senate  during  such  session  shall  refuse  to  advise  and 
consent  to  an  appointment  in  the  place  of  any  suspended  officer,  then,  and  not  other- 
VOL.  II.  44 


690  APPENDIX. 

wise,  the  President  shall  nominate  another  person  as  soon  as  practicable  to  said  session 
of  the  Senate  for  said  office. 

SEC.  3.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  section  three  of  the  act  to  which  this  is 
an  amendment  be  amended  by  inserting  after  the  word  "resignation,"  in  line  three  of 
said  section,  the  following:  "  or  expiration  of  term  of  office." 


APPENDIX   C. 

ARTICLES  OF  IMPEACHMENT  VOTED  UPON  BY  THE  SENATE. 

ARTICLE  XL 

That  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  unmindful  of  the  high 
duties  of  his  office  and  of  his  oath  of  office,  and  in  disregard  of  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  the  United  States,  did  heretofore,  to  wit:  on  the  18th  day  of  August,  1866,  at 
the  city  of  Washington,  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  by  public  speech,  declare  and 
affirm  in  substance  that  the  Thirty-Ninth  Congress  of  the  United  States  was  not  a 
Congress  of  the  United  States  authorized  by  the  Constitution  to  exercise  legislative 
power  under  the  same;  but,  on  the  contrary,  was  a  Congress  of  only  part  of  the  States, 
thereby  denying  and  intending  to  deny  that  the  legislation  of  said  Congress  was  valid 
or  obligatory  upon  him,  the  said  Andrew  Johnson,  except  in  so  far  as  he  saw  fit  to 
approve  the  same,  and  also  thereby  denying  and  intending  to  deny  the  power  of  the 
said  Thirty-Ninth  Congress  to  propose  amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States;  and,  in  pursuance  of  said  declaration,  the  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of 
the  United  States,  afterward,  to  wit:  on  the  21st  day  of  February,  1868,  at  the  city 
.of  Washington,  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  did  unlawfully  and  in  disregard  of  the 
requirements  of  the  Constitution,  that  he  should  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully 
•executed,  attempt  to  prevent  the  execution  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  regulating  the 
tenure  of  certain  civil  offices,"  passed  March  2,  1867,  by  unlawfully  devising  and  con- 
triving, and  attempting  to  devise  and  contrive,  means  by  which  he  should  prevent 
Edwin  M.  Stanton  from  forthwith  resuming  the  functions  of  the  office  of  Secretary  for 
'the  Department  of  War,  notwithstanding  the  refusal  of  the  Senate  to  concur  in  the 
-suspension  therefore  made  by  said  Andrew  Johnson  of  said  Edwin  M.  Stanton  from 
.-said  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  and  also  by  further  unlawfully 
devising  and  contriving,  and  attempting  to  devise  and  contrive,  means  then  and  there 
^o  prevent  the  execution  of  an  act  entitled  "An  act  making  appropriations  for  the 
support  of  the  Army  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1868,  and  for  other  purposes," 
.approved  March  2,  1867,  and  also  to  prevent  the  execution  of  an  act  entitled  "  An  act 
:to  provide  for  the  more  efficient  government  of  the  rebel  States,"  passed  March  2, 
1867;  whereby  the  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,' did  then,  to 
-wit:  on  the  21st  day  of  February,  1868,  at  the  city  of  Washington,  commit  and  was 
guilty  of  a  high  misdemeanor  in  office. 

And  the  House  of  Representatives,  by  protestation,  saving  to  themselves  the  lib- 
erty of  exhibiting  at  any  time  hereafter  any  further  articles  or  other  accusation  or 
impeachment  against  the  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  and 
also  of  replying  to  his  answers  which  he  shall  make  unto  the  articles  herein  preferred 
against  him,  and  of  offering  proof  to  the  same  and  every  part  thereof,  and  to  all  and 
every  other  article,  accusation,  or  impeachment  which  shall  be  exhibited  by  them,  as 
the  case  shall  require,  do  demand  that  the  said  Andrew  Johnson  may  be  put  to  answer 
the  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  in  office  herein  charged  against  him,  and  that  such 


APPENDIX.  691 

proceedings,  examinations,  trials,  and  judgments  may  be  thereupon  had  and  given  as 
may  be  agreeable  to  law  and  justice. 

ARTICLE  IL 

That  on  said  21st  day  of  February,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1868,  at  Washington, 
in  the  District  of  Columbia,  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States, 
unmindful  of  the  high  duties  of  his  office,  of  his  oath  of  office,  and  in  violation  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  an  act  entitled 
"An  act  regulating  the  tenure  of  certain  civil  offices,"  passed  March  2,  1867,  without 
the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  said  Senate  then  and  there 
being  in  session,  and  without  authority  of  law,  did,  with  intent  to  violate  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  and  the  act  aforesaid,  issue  and  deliver  to  one  Lorenzo 
Thomas  a  letter  of  authority  in  substance  as  follows,  that  is  to  say: 

EXECUTIVE  MANSION,  WASHINGTON,  B.C., 
February  21, 1868. 

SIR:  Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton  having  this  day  been  removed  from  office  as  Secretary 
for  the  Department  of  War,  you  are  hereby  authorized  and  empowered  to  act  as  Secre- 
tary of  War  ad  interim,  and  will  immediately  enter  upon  the  discharge  of  the  duties 
pertaining  to  that  office. 

Mr.  Stanton  has  been  instructed  to  transfer  to  you  all  the  records,  books,  papers, 
and  other  public  property  now  in  his  custody  and  charge. 

Respectfully  yours, 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 

To  Brevet  Major  General  LORENZO  THOMAS,  Adjutant   General  United  States  Army, 
Washington,  D.C. 

then  and  there  being  no  vacancy  in  said  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War; 
whereby  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  did  then  and  there 
commit  and  was  guilty  of  a  high  misdemeanor  in  office. 

ARTICLE  III. 

That  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  on  the  21st  day  of 
February,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1868,  at  Washington,  in  the  District  of  C  olumbia, 
did  commit  and  was  guilty  of  a  high  misdemeanor  in  office,  in  this,  that,  without 
authority  of  law,  while  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  was  then  and  there  in  session, 
he  did  appoint  one  Lorenzo  Thomas  to  be  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War  ad 
interim,  without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  with  intent  to  violate  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  no  vacancy  having  happened  in  said  office  of  Secre- 
tary for  the  Department  of  War  during  the  recess  of  the  Senate,  and  no  vacancy  exist- 
ing in  said  office  at  the  time,  and  which  said  appointment,  so  made  by  said  Andrew 
Johnson,  of  said  Lorenzo  Thomas,  is  in  substance  as  follows,  that  is  to  say: 

EXECUTIVE  MANSION,  WASHINGTON,  B.C., 
February  21,  1868. 

SIR:  Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton  having  been  this  day  removed  from  office  as  Secretary 
for  the  Department  of  War,  you  are  hereby  authorized  and  empowered  to  act  as  Secre- 
tary of  War  ad  interim,  and  will  immediately  enter  upon  the  discharge  of  the  duties 
pertaining  to  that  office. 

Mr.  Stanton  has  been  instructed  to  transfer  to  you  all  the  records,  books,  papers, 
and  other  public  property  now  in  his  custody  and  charge. 

Respectfully  yours, 

ANDREW  JOHNSON. 

To   Brevet  Major  General  LORENZO  THOMAS,  Adjutant  General  United  States  Army, 
Washington,  D.C. 


692  APPENDIX. 

APPENDIX    D. 

FORTY-FIRST  CONGRESS. 

REPUBLICANS  IN  ROMAN;  DEMOCRATS  IN  ITALIC. 
SENATE. 

Schuyler  Colfax  of  Indiana,  President. 

George  C.  Gorham  of  California,  Secretary. 

MAINE.  — William  Pitt  Fessenden,1  Hannibal  Hamlin. 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE. — Aaron  H.  Cragin,  James  W.  Patterson. 

VERMONT.  —  George  F.  Edmunds,  Justin  S.  Merrill. 

MASSACHUSETTS.  —  Charles  Sumner,  Henry  Wilson. 

RHODE  ISLAND.  —  Henry  B.  Anthony,  William  Sprague. 

CONNECTICUT.  —  Orris  S.  Ferry,  William  A.  Buckingham. 

NEW  YORK.  —  Roscoe  Conkling,  Reuben  E.  Fenton. 

NEW  JERSEY.  —  Alexander  G.  Cattell,  John  P.  Stockton. 

PENNSYLVANIA.  —  Simon  Cameron,  John  Scott. 

DELAWARE.  —  Willard  Saulsbury,  Thomas  F.  Bayard. 

MARYLAND.  —  George  Vickers,  William  T.  Hamilton. 

VIRGINIA.  —  John  W.  Johnston,  John  F.  Lewis. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. — Joseph  C.  Abbott,  John  Pool. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA.  —  Thomas  J.  Robertson,  Frederick  A.  Sawyer. 

GEORGIA.  —  H.  V.  M.  Miller,  Joshua  Hill. 

ALABAMA.  —  Willard  Warner,  George  E.  Spencer. 

MISSISSIPPI.  — Hiram  R.  Revels,  Adelbert  Ames. 

.LOUISIANA.  —  John  S.  Harris,  William  P.  Kellogg. 

OHIO.  — John  Sherman,  Allen  G.  Thurman. 

KENTUCKY.  —  Garrett  Davis,  Thomas  C.  McCreery. 

TENNESSEE.  —  Joseph  S.  Fowler,  William  G.  Brownlow. 

INDIANA.  —  Oliver  P.  Morton,  Daniel  D.  Pratt. 

ILLINOIS.  —  Lyman  Trumbull,  Richard  Yates. 

MISSOURI.  —  Charles  D.  Drake,2  Carl  Schurz. 

ARKANSAS.  —  Alexander  McDonald,  Benjamin  F.  Rice. 

MICHIGAN.  —  Zachariah  Chandler,  Jacob  M.  Howard. 

FLORIDA.  —  Thomas  W.  Osborn,  Abijah  Gilbert. 

TEXAS.  —  Morgan  C.  Hamilton,  Ja-mes  W.  Flanagan. 

IOWA.  —  James  W.  Grimes,3  James  Harlan. 

WISCONSIN.  —  Timothy  O.  Howe,  Matthew  H.  Carpenter. 

CALIFORNIA.  —  Cornelius  Cole,  Eugene  Casserly, 

MINNESOTA.  —  Alexander  Ramsey,  Daniel  S.  Norton.* 

OREGON.  —  George  H.  Williams,  Henry  W.  Corbett. 

KANSAS.  —  Edmund  G.  Ross,  Samuel  C.  Pomeroy. 

WEST  VIRGINIA.  —  Waitman  T.  Willey,  Arthur  I.  Boreman. 

NEVADA.  —  James  W.  Nye,  William  M.  Stewart." 

NEBRASKA.  —  John  M.  Thayer,  Thomas  W.  Tipton. 

1  Died.    Succeeded  by  Lot  M.  Morrill. 

*  Resigned.    Daniel  T.  Jewett  appointed  ;  Francis  P.  Blair,  jun.,  elected. 
8  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  James  B.  Howell. 

*  Died.    William  Windom  appointed  ;  Ozora  P.  Stearns  elected. 


APPENDIX.  693 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 
James  G.  Elaine  of  Maine,  Speaker. 
Edward  McPherson  of  Pennsylvania,  Clerk. 
MAINE.  —  John  Lynch,  Samuel  P.  Morrill,  James  G.  Elaine,  John  A.  Peters,  Eugene 

Hale. 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  —  Jacob  H.  Ela,  Aaron  F.  Stevens,  Jacob  Benton. 
VERMONT.  —Charles  W.  Willard,  Luke  P.  Poland,  Worthington  C.  Smith. 
MASSACHUSETTS.  —  James  Buffinton,  Oakes  Ames,  Ginery  Twichell,  Samuel  Hooper, 

Benjamin  F.  Butler,  Nathaniel  P.  Banks,  George  S.  Boutwell,1  George  F.  Hoar, 

William  B.  Washburn,  Henry  L.  Dawes. 
RHODE  ISLAND.  —  Thomas  A.  Jenckes,  Nathan  F.  Dixon. 
CONNECTICUT.  —Julius  Strong,  Stephen  W.  Kellogg,  Henry  H.  Starkweather,  William 

H.  Barnum. 
NEW  YORK. — Henry  A.  Beeves,  John  G.  Schumaker,  Henry  W.  Slocum,  John  Fox, 

John  Morrisey,  Samuel  S.  Cox,  Hervey  C.   Calkin,  James  Brooks,  Fernando 

Wood,  Clarkson  N.  Potter,  George  W.  Greene,2  John  H.  Ketcham,  John  A. 

Griswold,  Stephen  L.  May  ham,  Adolphus  H.  Tanner,  Orange  Ferriss,  William  A. 

Wheeler,  Stephen  Sanford,  Charles  Knapp,  Addison  H.  Laflin,  Alexander  H. 

Bailey,  John  C.  Churchill,  Dennis  McCarthy,  George  W.  Cowles,  William  H. 

Kelsey,  Giles  W.  Hotchkiss,  Hamilton  Ward,  Noah  Davis,8  John  Fisher,  David 

S.  Bennett,  Porter  Sheldon. 
NEW  JERSEY.— William  Moore,  Charles  Haight,  John  T.  Bird,  John  Hill,  Orestes 

Cleveland. 
PENNSYLVANIA.  —  Samuel  J.  Randall,  Charles  O'Neill,  John  Moffet,*  William  D. 

Kelley,  John  P.  Reading,**  John  D.  Stiles,  Washington  Townsend,  J.  Lawrence 

€fetz,  Oliver  J.  Dickey,  Henry  L.  Cake,  Daniel  M.  Van  Auken,  George   W. 

Woodward,  Ulysses  Mercur,  John  B.   Packer,   Richard  J.   Haldeman,  John 

Cessna,  Daniel  J.  Morrell,  William  H.  Armstrong,  Glenni  W.  Scofield,  Calvin 

W.  Gilfillan,  John  Covode,6  James  S.  Negley,  Darwin  Phelps,  Joseph  B.  Donley. 
DELAWARE.  —  Benjamin  T.  Biggs. 
MARYLAND.  —  Samuel   Hambleton,    Stevenson   Archer,    Thomas    Swann,    Patrick 

Hamill,  Frederick  Stone. 
VIRGINIA.  —Richards.  Ayer,  James  H.  Platt,  jun.,  Charles  H.  Porter,  GeorgeW.  Booker, 

Robert  S.  Ridgway,1  William  Milnes,jun.,  Lewis  McKenzie,  James  K.  Gibson. 
NORTH  CAROLINA.  —  Clinton  L.  Cobb,  David  Heaton,8  Oliver  H.  Dockery,  John  T. 

Deweese,9  Israel  G.  Lash,  Francis  E.  Shober,  Alexander  H.  Jones. 
SOUTH  CAROLINA.  —  B.  F.  Whittemore,10  Christopher  C.  Bowen,  Solomon  L.  Hoge, 

Alexander  S.  Wallace. 
GEORGIA.  —  William  W.  Paine,  Richard  H.  Whiteley,  Marion  Bethune,  Jefferson  F. 

Long,  Stephen  A.  Corker,  William  P.  Price,  Pierce  M.  B.  Young. 
ALABAMA.  —  Alfred  E.  Buck,  Charles  W.  Buckley,  Robert  S.  Heflin,  Charles  Hays, 

Peter  M.  Dox,  William  C.  Sherrod. 
MISSISSIPPI.  —  George  E.  Harris,  Joseph  L.  Morphis,  Henry  W.  Barry,  George  C. 

McKee,  Legrande  W.  Perce. 
LOUISIANA.  —  J.  Hale  Sypher,  Lionel  A.  Sheldon,  C.  B.  Darrall,  Michael  Ryan,11  Frank 

Morey. 

1  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  George  M.  Brooks.  «  Died  Januaiy  11,  1871. 

2  Unseated.    Charles  H.  Van  Wyck  admitted.  7  Died.    Succeeded  by  Richard  T.  W.  Duke. 
s  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  Charles  H.  Holmes.  8  Died.    Succeeded  by  Joseph  Dixon. 

*  Unseated.    Leonard  Myers  admitted.  9  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  John  Manning. 

6  Unseated.    Caleb  N.  Taylor  admitted.  10  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  Joseph  II.  Raiuey. 

11  Unseated.    Joseph  P.  Newsham  admitted. 


694  APPENDIX. 

OHIO. — Peter  W.  Strader,  Job  E.  Stevenson,  Robert  C.  Schenck,1  William  Lawrence, 

William  Mungen,  Jobn  A.  Smitli,  James  J.  Winans,  John  Beatty,  Edward  F. 

Dickinson,  Truman  H.  Hoag,2  Jobn  T.  Wilson,  Philadelph  Van  Trump,  George 

W.  Morgan,  Martin  Welker,  Eliakim  H.  Moore,  Jobn  A.  Bingbam,  Jacob  A. 

Ambler,  William  H.  Upson,  James  A.  Garfield. 
KENTUCKY. — Lawrence  S.  Trimble,  William  N.  Sweeney,  Jacob  S.  Golladay*  J. 

Proctor  Knott,  Boyd  Winchester,  Thomas  L.  Jones,  James  B.  Beck,  George  M. 

Adams,  John  M.  Rice. 
TENNESSEE.  —  Roderick  R.  Butler,  Horace  Maynard,  William  B.  Stokes,  Lewis  Till- 

man,  William  F.  Prosser,  Samuel  M.   Arnell,  Isaac  R.  Hawkins,  William  J. 

Smith. 
INDIANA.  —  William  E.  Niblack,  Michael  C.  Kerr,  William  S.  Holman,  George  W. 

Julian,  John  Coburn,  Daniel  W.  Voorhees,  Godlove  S.  Orth,  James  N.  Tyner, 

John  P.  C.  Shanks,  William  Williams,  Jasper  Packard. 
ILLINOIS.  —  Norman  B.  Judd,  John  F.  Farnsworth,  Elihu  B.  Washburne,4  John  B. 

Hawley,  Ebon  C.  Ingersoll,  Burton  C.  Cook,  Jesse  H.  Moore,  Shelby  M.  Cullom, 

Thompson  W.  McNeely,  Albert  G.  Burr,  Samuel  S.  Marshall,  John  B.  Hay, 

John  M.  Crebs,  John  A.  Logan. 
MISSOURI. — Erastus  Wells,  Gustavus  A.  Finkelnburg,  James  R.  McCormick,  Sempro- 

nius  H.  Boyd,  Samuel  S.  Burdett,  Robert  T.  Van  Horn,  Joel  F.  Asper,  John  F. 

Benjamin,  David  P.  Dyer.  • 

ARKANSAS.  —  Logan  H.  Roots,  A.  A.  C.  Rogers,  Thomas  Boles. 
MICHIGAN.  —  Fernando  C.  Beaman,  William  L.  Stoughton,  Austin  Blair,  Thomas  W. 

Ferry,  Omar  D.  Conger,  Randolph  Strickland. 
FLORIDA.  —  Charles  M.  Hamilton. 

TEXAS.  —  George  W.  Whitmore,  John  C.  Conner,  W.  T.  Clark,  Edward  Degener. 
IOWA.  —  George  W.  McCrary,  William  Smyth,5  William  B.  Allison,  William  Lough- 
ridge,  Frank  W.  Palmer,  Charles  Pomeroy. 
WISCONSIN.  —  Halbert  E.  Paine,  Benjamin  F.  Hopkins,6  Amasa  Cobb,  Charles  A. 

Eldridge,  Philetus  Sawyer,  Cadwalader  C.  Washburn. 
CALIFORNIA.  —  Samuel  B.  Axtell,  Aaron  A.  Sargent,  James  A.  Johnson. 
MINNESOTA.  — Morton  S.  Wilkinson,  Eugene  M.  Wilson. 
OREGON. — Joseph  S.  Smith. 
KANSAS.  —  Sidney  Clarke. 

WEST  VIRGINIA.  —  Isaac  H.  Duval,  James  C.  McGrew,  John  S.  Witcher. 
NEVADA.  —  Thomas  Fitch. 
NEBRASKA.  — John  Taffe. 

DELEGATES. 

ARIZONA. — Richard  C.  McCormick. 
COLORADO.  —  Allen  A.  Bradford. 
DAKOTA.  — S.  L.  Spink. 
IDAHO.  —  Jacob  K.  Shafer. 
MONTANA. — James  M.  Cavanaugh. 
NEW  MEXICO.  — J.  Francisco  Chaves, 
UTAH.  —  William  H.  Hooper. 
WASHINGTON. — Selucius  Garfielde. 
WYOMING.  —  Stephen  F.  Nuckolls. 

1  Resigned  January  5, 1871.  *  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  Horatio  C.  Burchard. 

2  Died.    Succeeded  by  Erasmus  D.  Peck.  5  Died.    Succeeded  by  William  P.  Wolf. 

3  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  Joseph  H.  Lewis.  6  Died.     Succeeded  by  David  Atwood. 


APPENDIX.  695 


APPENDIX  E. 

FORTY-SECOND  CONGRESS. 

REPUBLICANS  IN  ROMAN;  DEMOCRATS  IN  ITALIC. 

SENATE. 

Schuyler  Colfax  of  Indiana,  President. 
George  C.  Gorham  of  California,  Secretary. 
MAINE.  —  Hannibal  Hamlin,  Lot  M.  Morrill. 
NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  — Aaron  H.  Cragin,  James  W.  Patterson. 
VERMONT.  —  George  F.  Edmunds,  Justin  S.  Morrill. 
MASSACHUSETTS.  —  Charles  Sumner,  Henry  Wilson. 
RHODE  ISLAND.  —  Henry  B.  Anthony,  William  Sprague. 
CONNECTICUT.  —  Orris  S.  Ferry,  William  A.  Buckingham. 
NEW  YORK.  — Roscoe  Conkling,  Reuben  E.  Fenton. 
NEW  JERSEY.  — John  P.  Stockton,  Frederick  T.  Frelinghuysen. 
PENNSYLVANIA.  —  Simon  Cameron,  John  Scott. 
DELAWARE.  —  Thomas  Francis  Bayard,  Eli  SauUbury. 
MARYLAND.  —  George  Vickers,  William  T.  Hamilton. 
VIRGINIA.  —  John  W.  Johnston,  John  F.  Lewis. 
NORTH  CAROLINA.  — John  Pool,  Matt  W.  Hansom. 
SOUTH  CAROLINA.  —  Thomas  J.  Robertson,  Frederick  A.  Sawyer. 
GEORGIA.  —  Joshua  Hill,  Thomas  Manson  Norwood. 
ALABAMA.  —  George  E.  Spencer,  George  Goldthwaite. 
MISSISSIPPI.  —  Adelbert  Ames,  James  L.  Alcorn. 
LOUISIANA.  —  William  Pitt  Kellogg,1  J.  Rodman  West. 
OHIO.  —  John  Sherman,  Allen  G.  Thurman. 
KENTUCKY.  —  Garrett  Davis,2  John  W.  Stevenson. 
TENNESSEE.  — William  Gannaway  Brownlow,  Henry  Cooper. 
INDIANA.  —  Oliver  P.  Morton,  Daniel  D.  Pratt. 
ILLINOIS.  —  Lyman  Trumbull,  John  A.  Logan. 
MISSOURI.  —  Carl  Schurz,  Francis  P.  Blair,  jun. 
ARKANSAS.  —  Benjamin  F.  Rice,  Powell  Clayton. 
MICHIGAN.  —  Zachariah  Chandler,  Thomas  W.  Ferry. 
FLORIDA.  —  Thomas  W.  Osborn,  Abijah  Gilbert. 
TEXAS.  —  Morgan  C.  Hamilton,  J.  W.  Flanagan. 
IOWA.  —James  Harlan,  George  G.  Wright. 
WISCONSIN.  —Timothy  O.  Howe,  Matthew  H.  Carpenter. 
CALIFORNIA.  — Cornelius  Cole,  Eugene  Casserly. 
MINNESOTA.  —  Alexander  Ramsey,  William  Windom. 
OREGON.  —  Henry  W.  Corbett,  James  K.  Kelly. 
KANSAS.  —  Samuel  C.  Pomeroy,  Alexander  Caldwell. 
WEST  VIRGINIA.  —  Arthur  I.  Boreman,  Henry  G.  Davis. 
NEVADA.  —  James  W.  Nye,  William  M.  Stewart. 
NEBRASKA.  —  Thomas  W.  Tipton,  Phineas  W.  Hitchcock. 

*  Resigned.  *  Died.    Succeeded  by  Willis  £.  Machen. 


696  APPENDIX. 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

James  G.  Elaine  of  Maine,  Speaker. 

Edward  McPherson  of  Pennsylvania,  Clerk. 

MAINE.  —  John  Lynch,  William  P.  Frye,  James  G.  Elaine,  John  A.  Peters,  Eugene  Hale. 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  —  Ellery  A.  Hibbard,  Samuel  N.  Bell,  Hosea  W.  Parker. 

VERMONT.  —  Charles  W.  Willard,  Luke  P.  Poland,  Worthington  C.  Smith. 

MASSACHUSETTS.  —  James  Buffinton,  Oakes  Ames,  Ginery  Twichell,  Samuel  Hooper, 
Eenjamin  F.  Butler,  Nathaniel  P.  Banks,  George  M.  Brooks,1  George  F.  Hoar, 
William  B.  Washburn,2  Henry  L..Dawes. 

RHODE  ISLAND.  —  Benjamin  T.  Eames,  James  M.  Pendleton. 

CONNECTICUT. —Julius  L.  Strong,3  Stephen  W.  Kellogg,  Henry  H.  Starkweather, 
William  H.  Barnum. 

NEW  YORK.  —  Dwiyht  Townsend,  Thomas  Kinsella,  Henry  W.  Slocum,  Robert  B. 
Roosevelt,  William  R.  Roberts,  Samuel  Sullivan  Cox,  Smith  Ely,  jun.,  James 
Brooks,  Fernando  Wood,  Clarkson  Nott  Potter,  Charles  St.  John,  John  H. 
Ketcham,  Joseph  H.  Tuthill,  Eli  Perry,  Joseph  M.  Warren,  .John  Rogers, 
William  A.  Wheeler,  John  M.  Carroll,  Elizur  H.  Prindle,  Clinton  L.  Merriam, 
Ellis  H.  Roberts,  William  E.  Lansing,  R.  Holland  Duell,  John  E.  Seeley, 
William  H.  Lamport,  Milo  Goodrich,  H.  Boardman  Smith,  Freeman  Clarke, 
Seth  Wakeman,  William  Williams,  Walter  L.  Sessions. 

NEW  JERSEI.— John  W.  Hazeiton,  Samuel  C.  Forker,  John  T.  Bird,  John  Hill, 
George  A.  Halsey. 

PENNSYLVANIA.  —  Samuel  J.  Randall,  John  V.  Creely,  Leonard  Myers,  William  D. 
Kelley,  Alfred  C.  Harmer,  Ephraim  L.  Acker,  Washington  Townsend,  J.  Law- 
rence Getz,  Oliver  J.  Dickey,  John  W.  Killinger,  John  B.  Storm,  L.  D.  Shoe- 
maker, Ulysses  Mercur,4  John  B.  Packer,  Richard  J.  Haldeman,  Benjamin  F. 
Meyers,  Robert  Milton  Speer,  Henry  Sherwood,  Glenni  W.  Scofield,  Samuel 
Griffith,  Henry  Donnell  Foster,  James  S.  Negley,  Ebenezer  McJunkin,  William 
McClelland. 

DELAWARE.  —  Benjamin  T.  Biggs. 

MARYLAND.  —  Samuel  Hambleton,  Stevenson  Archer,  Thomas  Swann,  John  Ritchie, 
William  M.  Merrick. 

VIRGINIA. — John  Critcher,  James  H.  Platt,  jun.,  Charles  H.  Porter,  William  II.  H. 
Stowell,  Richard  T.  W.  Duke,  John  T.  Harris,  Elliott  M.  Braxton,  William 
Terry. 

NORTH  CAROLINA.  —  Clinton  L.  Cobb,  Charles  R.  Thomas,  Alfred  M.  Waddell,  Sion 
H.  Rogers,  James  M.  Leach,  Francis  E.  Shober,  James  C.  Harper. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA. — Joseph  H.  Rainey,  Robert  C.  De  Large,5  Robert  Brown  Elliott, 
Alexander  S.  Wallace. 

GEORGIA.  — Archibald  T.  Mclntyre,  Richard  H.  Whiteley,  John  S.  Bigby,  Thomas 
J.  Speer,6  Dudley  M.  DuBose,  William  P.  Price,  Pierce  M.  B.  Young. 

ALABAMA.  —  Benjamin  Sterling  Turner,  Charles  W.  Buckley,  William  A.  Handley, 
Charles  Hays,  Peter  M.  Dox,  Joseph  H.  Sloss. 

MISSISSIPPI.  —  George  E.  Harris,  Joseph  L.  Morphis,  Henry  W.  Barry,  George  C. 
McKee,  Legrande  W.  Perce. 

LOUISIANA.  —  Jay  Hale  Sypher,  Lionel  A.  Sheldon,  Chester  B.  Darrall,  James  Mc- 
Cleary,"  Frank  Morey. 

1  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  Constantino  C.  Esty.  *  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  Frank  C.  Bunnell. 

2  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  Alvah  Crocker.  B  Unseated  January  24, 1873. 

«  Died.    Succeeded  by  Joseph  R.  Hawley.  «  Died.    Succeeded  by  Erasmus  W.  Seek. 

7  Died.    Succeeded  by  Aleck  Boarman. 


APPENDIX.  697 

OHIO.  — Aaron  F.  Perry,1  Job  E.  Stevenson,  Lewis  D.  Campbell,  John  F.  McKinney, 

Charles  N.  Lamison,  John  A.  Smith,  Samuel  Shellabarger,  John  Beatty,  Charles 

Foster,  Erasmus  D.  Peck,  John  T.   Wilson,  Philadelph   Van  Trump,  George 

W.  Morgan,  James  Monroe,  William  P.  Sprague,  John  A.  Bingham,  Jacob  A. 

Ambler,  William  H.  Upson,  James  A.  Garfield. 
KENTUCKY. — Edward  Crossland,  Henry  D.  McHenry,  Joseph  H.  Lewis,  William  B. 

Head,  Boyd  Winchester,  William  E.  Arthur,  James  B.  Beck,  George  M.  Adams, 

John  M.  Bice. 
TENNESSEE. — Koderick  K.   Butler,  Horace  Maynard,  Abraham  E.   Garrett,  John 

Morgan  Bright,  Edward  I.  Golladay,  Washington  Curran  Whitthorne,  Robert 

P.  Caldwell,  William  W.  Vaughan. 
INDIANA.  —  William  E.  Niblack,  Michael  C.  Kerr,  William  S.  Holman,  Jeremiah  M. 

Wilson,  John  Coburn,  Daniel   W.  Voorhees,  Mahlon  D.  Manson,  James  N. 

Tyner,  John  P.  C.  Shanks,  William  Williams,  Jasper  Packard. 
ILLINOIS.  —  Charles  B.  Farwell,  John  F.  Farnsworth,  Horatio  C.  Burchard,  John  B. 

Hawley,  Bradford  N.  Stevens,  Burton  C.  Cook,2  Jesse  H.  Moore,  James  C. 

Robinson,  Thompson  W.  McNeely,  Edward  Y.  Rice,  Samuel  S.  Marshall,  John 

B.  Hay,  John  M.  Crebs,  John  L.  Beveridge.8 

MISSOURI. — Erastus  Wells,  Gustavus  A.  Finkelnburg,  James  R.  McCormick,  Harri- 
son E.  Havens,  Samuel  S.  Burdett,  Abram  Comingo,  Isaac  C.  Parker,  James  G. 

Blair,  Andrew  King. 

ARKANSAS.  — James  M.  Hanks,  Oliver  P.  Snyder,  John  Edwards.* 
MICHIGAN.  —  Henry  Waldron,  William  L.  Stoughton,  Austin  Blair,  Wilder  D.  Foster, 

Omar  D.  Conger,  Jabez  G.  Sutherland. 
FLORIDA.  —  Josiah  T.  Walls.5 

TEXAS.  —  William  S.  Herndon,  John  C.  Conner,  William  T.  Clark,6  John  Hancock. 
IOWA. — George  W.  McCrary,  Aylett  R.  Cotton,  William  G.  Donnan,  Madison  M. 

Walden,  Frank  W.  Palmer,  Jackson  Orr. 
WISCONSIN.  —  Alexander  Mitchell,  Gerry  W.  Hazelton,  J.  Allen  Barber,  Charles  A. 

Eldridge,  Philetus  Sawyer,  Jeremiah  M.  Rusk. 

CALIFORNIA.  —  Sherman  O.  Houghton,  Aaron  A.  Sargent,  John  M.  Coghlan. 
MINNESOTA.  —  Mark  H.  Dunriell,  John  T.  Averill. 
OREGON.  — James  H.  Slater. 
KANSAS.  —  David  P.  Lowe. 

WEST  VIRGINIA.  — John  J.  Davis,  James  C.  McGrew,  Frank  Hereford. 
NEVADA.  —  Charles  West  Kendall. 

NEBRASKA.  —  John  Taffe. 

DELEGATES. 

ARIZONA.  —  Richard  C.  McCormick. 

COLORADO.  —  Jerome  B.  Chaffee. 

DAKOTA.  — Moses  K.  Armstrong. 

DISTRICT  OF  COLUMBIA.  —  Norton  P.  Chipman, 

IDAHO.  —  Samuel  A.  Merritt. 

MONTANA. —William  H.  Clagett. 

NEW  MEXICO.  —  Jose  M.  Gallegas. 

UTAH.  —  William  II.  Hooper. 

WASHINGTON.  —  Selucius  Garfielde. 

WYOMING.— William  T.  Jones. 

1  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  Ozro  J.  Dodds.  *  Unseated.    Thomas  Boles  admitted. 

2  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  H.  Snap.  8  Unseated.    S.  L.  Niblack  admitted. 

8  Resigned  January  4, 1873.  6  Unseated.    D.  C.  Giddings  admitted. 


698  APPENDIX. 

APPENDIX    F. 

FORTY-THIRD  CONGRESS. 

REPUBLICANS    IN  KOMAN  J    DEMOCRATS    IN  ITALIC. 
SENATE. 

Henry  Wilson  of  Massachusetts,  President. 

George  C.  Gorham  of  California,  Secretary. 

MAINE.  —  Hannibal  Hainlin,  Lot  M.  Merrill. 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  —  Aaron  H.  Cragin,  Bainbridge  Wadleigh. 

VERMONT.  — George  F.  Edmunds,  Justin  S.  Merrill. 

MASSACHUSETTS. — Henry  Wilson,1  Charles  Sumner.2 

RHODE  ISLAND.  —  Henry  B.  Anthony,  William  Sprague. 

CONNECTICUT.  —  Orris  S.  Ferry,  William  A.  Buckingham.8 

NEW  YORK.  —  Roscoe  Conkling,  Reuben  E.  Fenton. 

NEW  JERSEY.  —  John  P.  Stockton,  Frederick  T.  Frelinghuysen. 

PENNSYLVANIA.  —  Simon  Cameron,  John  Scott. 

DELAWARE.  —  Thomas  Francis  Bayard,  Eli  Saulsbury. 

MARYLAND.  —  William  T.  Hamilton,  George  E.  Dennis. 

VIRGINIA. — John  W.  Johnston,  John  F.  Lewis. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. — Matt  W.  Ransom,  Augustus  S.  Merrimon. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA.  —  Thomas  J.  Robertson,  John  J.  Patterson. 

GEORGIA.  —  Thomas  Hanson  Norwood,  John  B.  Gordon. 

ALABAMA.  —  George  E.  Spencer,  George  Goldthwaite. 

MISSISSIPPI.  — James  Lusk  Alcorn,  Adelbert  Ames.4 

LOUISIANA. — J.  R.  West,  (vacancy  contested). 

OHIO. — John  Sherman,  Allen  G.  Thurman. 

KENTUCKY. — John  W.  Stevenson,  Thomas  C.  McCreery. 

TENNESSEE.  —  William  G.  Brownlow,  Henry  Cooper. 

INDIANA.  —  Oliver  P.  Morton,  Daniel  D.  Pratt. 

ILLINOIS.  —  John  A.  Logan,  Richard  J.  Oglesby. 

MISSOURI.  —  Carl  Schurz,  Lewis  V.  Bogy. 

ARKANSAS.  —  Powell  Clayton,  Stephen  W.  Dorsey. 

MICHIGAN.  —  Zachariah  Chandler,  Thomas  W.  Ferry. 

FLORIDA.  —  Abijah  Gilbert,  Simon  B.  Conover. 

TEXAS.  — Morgan  C.  Hamilton,  James  W,  Flanagan. 

IOWA.  —  George  G.  Wright,  William  B.  Allison. 

WISCONSIN. — Timothy  O.  Howe,  Matthew  H.  Carpenter. 

CALIFORNIA.  — Aaron  A.  Sargent,  Eugene  Casserly.5 

MINNESOTA.  —  Alexander  Ramsey,  William  Windom. 

OREGON.  —  James  K.  Kelly,  John  H.  Mitchell. 

KANSAS.  — John  James  Ingalls,  Alexander  Caldwell.6 

WEST  VIRGINIA.  —  Arthur  I.  Boreman,  Henry  G.  Davis. 

NEVADA.  —  William  M.  Stewart,  John  P.  Jones. 

NEBRASKA.  —  Thomas  W.  Tipton,  Phineas  W.  Hitchcock. 

1  Died.    Succeeded  by  George  S.  Boutwell.  4  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  Henry  R.  Pease. 

2  Died.    Succeeded  by  William  B.  Washburn.  B  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  John  S.  JIager. 
*  Died.    Succeeded  by  William  W.  Eaton. 

c  Resigned.    Robert  Crozier  appointed  ;  James  M.  Harvey  elected. 


APPENDIX.  699 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

Jaines  G.  Elaine  of  Maine,  Speaker. 

Edward  McPherson  of  Pennsylvania,  Clerk. 

MAINE.  —  John  H.  Burleign,  William  P.  Frye,  James  G.  Elaine,  Samuel  F.  Hersey,1 
Eugene  Hale. 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  —William  B.  Small,  Austin  F.  Pike,  Hosea  W.  Parker. 

VERMONT.  —  Charles  W.  Willard,  Luke  P.  Poland,  George  Whitman  Hendee. 

MASSACHUSETTS.  —  James  Buffinton,  Benjamin  W.  Harris,  William  Whiting,2  Samuel 
Hooper,3  Daniel  W.  Gooch,  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  E.  Rockwood  Hoar,  John  M.  S. 
Williams,  George  F.  Hoar,  Alvah  Crocker,4  Henry  L.  Dawes. 

RHODE  ISLAND.  —  Benjamin  T.  Earnes,  James  M.  Pendleton. 

CONNECTICUT.  —  Joseph  Roswell  Hawley,  Stephen  W.  Kellogg,  Henry  H.  Stark- 
weather, William  II.  Barnum. 

NEW  YORK.  —  Henry  J.  Scudder,  John  G.  ScJiumaker,  Stewart  L.  Woodford,5  Philip 
S.  Crooke,  William  Randal  Roberts,  James  Brooks,*  Thomas  J.  Creamer, 
John  D.  Lawson,  David  B.  Mellish,7  Fernando  Wood,  Clarkson  Nott  Potter, 
Charles  St.  John,  John  O.  Whitehouse,  David  Miller  De  Witt,  Eli  Perry,  James 
S.  Smart,  Robert  S.  Hale,  William  A.  Wheeler,  Henry  H.  Hathorn,  David  Wil- 
ber,  Clinton  L.  Merriam,  Ellis  H.  Roberts,  William  E.  Lansing,  R.  Holland 
Duell,  Clinton  Dugald  MacDougall,  William  H.  Lamport,  Thomas  C.  Platt,  H. 
Boardman  Smith,  Freeman  Clarke,  George  G.  Hoskins,  Lyman  K.  Bass,  Walter 
L.  Sessions,  Lyman  Tremaine. 

NEW  JERSEY.  —  John  W.  Hazelton,  Samuel  A.  Dobbins,  Amos  Clark,  jun.,  Robert 
Hamilton,  William  Walter  Phelps,  Marcus  L.  Ward,  Isaac  W.  Scudder. 

PENNSYLVANIA.  —  Samuel  J.  Randall,  Charles  O'Neill,  Leonard  Myers,  William  D. 
Kelley,  Alfred  C.  Harmer,  James  S.  Biery,  Washington  Townsend,  Hiester 
Clymer,  A.  Herr  Smith,  John  W.  Killinger,  John  B.  Storm,  Lazarus  D.  Shoe- 
maker, James  D.  Strawbridge,  John  B.  Packer,  John  A.  Magee,  John  Cessna, 
Robert  Milton  Speer,  Sobieski  Ross,  Carlton  B.  Curtis,  Hiram  L.  Richmond, 
Alexander  Wilson  Taylor,  James  S.  Negley,  Ebenezer  McJunkin,8  William  S. 
Moore,  Lemuel  Todd,  Glenni  W.  Scofield,  Charles  Albright. 

DELAWARE.  —  James  R.  Lofland. 

MARYLAND.  —  Ephraim  K.  Wilson,  Stevenson  Archer,  William  J.  O'Brien,  Thomas 
Swann,  William  J.  Albert,  Lloyd  Lowndes,  jun. 

VIRGINIA.  — James  B.  Sener,  James  H.  Platt,  jun.,  John  Ambler  Smith,  William  H.  H. 
Stowell,  Alexander  M.  Davis*  Thomas  Whitehead,  John  T.  Harris,  Eppa 
Hunton,  Rees  T.  Bowen. 

NORTH  CAROLINA.  —  Clinton  L.  Cobb,  Charles  R.  Thomas,  Alfred  Moore  Waddell, 
William  Alexander  Smith,  James  M.  Leach,  Thomas  S.  Ashe,  William  M.  Rob' 
bins,  Robert  Brank  Vance. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA.  —  Joseph  H.  Rainey,  Alonzo  J.  Ransier,  Robert  Brown  Elliott,10 
Alexander  S.  Wallace,  Richard  H.  Cain. 

GEORGIA.  — Morgan  Rawls,11  Richard  Henry  Whiteley,  Philip  Cook,  Henry  R.  Harris, 
James  C.  Freeman,  James  H.  Blount,  Pierce  M.  B.  Young,  Ambrose  R.  Wright,12 
Hiram  P.  Bell. 

Died  February  3,  1875.  7  Died.    Succeeded  by  Richard  Schell. 

Died.    Succeeded  by  Henry  Lillie  Pierce.  «  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  John  M.  Thompson. 

Died  February  14,  1875.  9  Unseated.    Christopher  Y.  Thomas  admitted. 

Died.    Succeeded  by  Charles  A.  Stevens.  10  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  Lewis  Cass  Carpenter. 

Resigned.     Succeeded  by  Simeon  B.  Chittenden.  n  Unseated.    Andrew  Sloan  admitted. 

Died.    Succeeded  by  Samuel  S.  Cox.  12  Died.    Succeeded  by  Alexander  H.  Stephens. 


TOO  APPENDIX. 

ALABAMA.  —  Frederick  G.  Bromberg,  James  T.  Rapier,  Charles  Pelham,  Charles 

Hays,   John   H.    Caldwell,  Joseph  H.   Sloss,  Alexander  White,    Charles   C. 

Sheats. 
MISSISSIPPI.  —  Lucius  Q.  C.  Lamar,  Albert  R.  Howe,  Henry  W.  Barry,  Jason  Mies, 

George  C.  McKee,  John  R.  Lynch. 
LOUISIANA.  —  Jay  Hale  Sypher,1  Lionel  A.  Sheldon,  Chester  B.   Darrall,   Samuel 

Peters,2  Frank  Morey,  George  A.  Sheridan. 
OHIO. — Milton  Sayler,  Henry  B.   Banning,  John  Q.   Smith,  Lewis  B.  Gunckel, 

Charles  N.  Lamison,  Isaac  R.  Sherwood,  Lawrence  Talbott  Neal,  William  Law- 
rence, James  W.  Robinson,  Charles  Foster,  Hezekiah  S.  Bundy,  Hugh  J.  Jewett,3 

Milton  I.  Southard,  John  Berry,  William  P.  Sprague,  Lorenzo  Danford,  Laurin 

D.  Woodworth,  James  Monroe,  James  A.  Garfield,  Richard  C.  Parsons. 
KENTUCKY.  —  Edward  Crossland,  John  Young  Brown,  Charles  W.  MilUkin,  William 

B.  Read,  Elisha  D.  Standeford,  William  E.  Arthur,  James  B.  Beck,  Milton 

J.  Durham,  George  M.  Adams,  John  D.  Young. 
TENNESSEE.  —Roderick  R.  Butler,  Jacob  M.  Thornburgh,  William  Crutchfield,  John 

Morgan  Bright,  Horace  H.  Harrison,  Washington  C.  Whitthorne,  John  D.  C. 

Atkins,  David  A.  Nunn,  Barbour  Lewis,  Horace  Maynard. 
INDIANA.  —  William  E.  Niblack,  Simeon  K.   Wolfe,  William  8.  Holman,  Jeremiah 

M.    Wilson,  John  Coburn,  Morton  C.    Hunter,  Thomas  J.  Cason,  James  N. 

Tyner,  John  P.  C.  Shanks,  Henry  B.  Sayler,  Jasper  Packard,  William  Williams, 

Godlove  S.  Orth. 
ILLINOIS.  —  John  B.  Rice,4  Jasper  D.  Ward,  Charles  B.  Farwell,  Stephen  A.  Hurlbut, 

Horatio  C.  Burchard,  John  B.  Hawley,  Franklin  Corwin,  Greenbury  L.  Fort, 

Granville  Barrere,  William  H.    Ray,  Robert  M.  Knapp,  James  C.  Robinson, 

John  McNulta,  Joseph  G.  Cannon,  John  R.  Eden,  James  S.  Martin,  William  R. 

Morrison,  Isaac  Clements,  Samuel  S.  Marshall. 
MISSOURI.  —  Edwin  O.   Stannard,   Erastus    Wells,    William    H.    Stone,   Robert  A. 

Hatcher,  Richard  Parks  Bland,  Harrison  E.  Havens,  Thomas  T.  Crittenden, 

Abram   Comingo,  Isaac  C.  Parker,  Ira  B.  Hyde,  John  B.  Clark,  jun.,  John 

Montgomery  Glover,  Aylett  Hawes  Buckner. 
ARKANSAS.  —  Asa  Hodges,   Oliver  P.   Snyder,  William  W.   Wilshire,5  William  J. 

Hynes. 
MICHIGAN. — Moses  W.  Field,  Henry  Waldron,  George  Willard,  Julius  C.  Burrows, 

Wilder  D.  Foster,6  Josiah  W.  Begole,  Omar  D.  Conger,  Nathan  B.  Bradley,  Jay 

A.  Hubbell. 

FLORIDA.  —  Josiah  T.  Walls,  William  J.  Purman.7 
TEXAS.  —  William  S.  Herndon,  William  P.  McLean,  De  Witt  C.  Giddings,  John 

Hancock,  Roger  Q.  Mills,  Asa  H.  Willie. 
IOWA.  —George  W.  McCrary,  Aylett  R.  Cotton,  William  G.  Dorman,  Henry  O.  Pratt, 

James  Wilson,  William  Loughridge,  John  A.  Kasson,  James  Wilson 'McDill, 

Jackson  Orr. 
WISCONSIN.  —  Charles  G.  Williams,  Gerry  W.  Hazelton,  J.  Allen  Barber,  Alexander 

Mitchell,  Charles  A.  Eldridge,  Philetus  Sawyer,  Jeremiah  M.  Rusk,  Alexander 

S.  McDill. 
CALIFORNIA.  —  Charles  Clayton,  Horace  Francis  Page,  John  K.  Luttrell,  Sherman 

O.  Houghton. 

1  Unseated.    Efflngham  Lawrence  admitted.  *  Died.    Succeeded  by  Bernard  G.  Cautfeld. 

2  Died.    Succeeded  by  George  L.  Smith.  B  Unseated.     Thomas  M.  Gunter  admitted. 

s  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  William  E.  Finck.  6  Died.    Succeeded  by  William  B.  Williams. 

i  Resigned  January  25, 1875. 


APPENDIX.  701 

MINNESOTA.  — Mark  H.  Dunnell,  Horace  B.  Strait,  John  T.  Averill. 

OREGON.  —  J.  G.  Wilson.1 

KANSAS.  —David  P.  Lowe,  Stephen  A.  Cobb,  William  A.  Phillips. 

WEST  VIRGINIA.  —  John  J.  Davis,  John  M.  Hagans,  Frank  Hereford. 

NEVADA.  —  Charles  West  Kendall. 

NEBRASKA.  —  Lorenzo  Crounse. 

DELEGATES. 

ARIZONA. — Richard  C.  McCormick. 
COLORADO.  —  Jerome  B.  Chaffee. 
DAKOTA.  —  Moses  K.  Armstrong. 
DISTRICT  OF  COLUMBIA.  —  Norton  P.  Chipman. 
IDAHO.  — John  Hailey. 
MONTANA.  —  Martin  Maginnis. 
NEW  MEXICO.  —  Stephen  B.  Elkins. 
UTAH.  —  George  Q.  Cannon. 
WASHINGTON.  —  Obadiah  B.McFadden. 
WYOMING.  —  William  B.  Steele. 


APPENDIX  G. 

FORTY-FOURTH  CONGRESS. 

REPUBLICANS  IN  ROMAN;  DEMOCRATS  IN  ITALIC. 

SENATE. 

Thomas  W.  Ferry  of  Michigan,  President. 
George  C.  Gorham  of  California,  Secretary. 
ALABAMA.  —  George  E.  Spencer,  George  Goldthwaite. 
ARKANSAS.  —  Powell  Clayton,  Stephen  W.  Dorsey. 
CALIFORNIA.  —  Aaron  A.  Sargent,  Newton  Booth. 
COLORADO.  —  Jerome  B.  Chaffee,  Henry  M.  Teller. 
CONNECTICUT.  —  William  W.  Eaton,  Orris  S.  Ferry.2 
DELAWARE.  —  Thomas  Francis  Bayard,  Eli  Saulsbury. 
FLORIDA.  —  Simon  B.  Conover,  Charles  W.  Jones. 
GEORGIA.  —  Thomas  Manson  Norwood,  John  B.  Gordon. 
ILLINOIS.  —  John  A.  Logan,  Richard  J.  Oglesby. 
INDIANA.  —  Oliver  P.  Morton,  Joseph  E.  McDonald. 
IOWA.  —  George  G.  Wright,  William  B.  Allison. 
KANSAS.  —  John  James  Ingalls,  James  M.  Harvey. 
KENTUCKY. — John  W.  Stevenson,  Thomas  C.  McCreery. 
LOUISIANA.  —  J.  R.  West;  (vacancy  contested.) 
MAINE.  —  Hannibal  Hamlin,  Lot  M.  Morrill.8 
MARYLAND.  —  George  R.  Dennis,  W.  Pinkney  Whyte. 
MASSACHUSETTS.  —  George  S.  Boutwell,  Henry  L.  Dawes. 
MICHIGAN.  —  Thomas  W.  Ferry,  Isaac  P.  Christiancy. 
MINNESOTA.  — William  Windom,  Samuel  J.  R.  McMillan. 
MISSISSIPPI.  —  James  Lusk  Alcom,  Blanche  K.  Bruce. 

1  Died.    Succeeded  by  James  W.  Nexmith. 

2  Died.    James  E.  English  appointed;  William  H.  Barnum  elected. 

3  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  James  G.  Blame. 


702  APPENDIX. 

MISSOURI. — Lewis  V.  Bogy,  Francis  Marion  Cockrell. 

NEBRASKA.  —  Phineas  W.  Hitchcock,  Algernon  S.  Paddock. 

NEVADA.  —  John  P.  Jones,  William  Sharon. 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE. — Aaron  H.  Cragin,  Bainbridge  Wadleigh. 

NEW  JERSEY.  —  Frederick  T.  Frelinghuysen,  Theodore  F.  Randolph. 

NEW  YORK.  —  Roscoe  Conkling,  Francis  Kernan. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. — Matt  W.  Ransom,  Augustus  S.  Merrimon. 

OHIO.  — John  Sherman,  Allen  G.  Thurrnan. 

OREGON.  —  James  K.  Kelly,  John  H.  Mitchell. 

PENNSYLVANIA.  —  Simon  Cameron,  William  A.  Wallace. 

RHODE  ISLAND. — Henry  B.  Anthony,  Ambrose  E.  Burnside. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA.  —  Thomas  J.  Robertson,  John  J.  Patterson. 

TENNESSEE.  —  Henry  Cooper,  Andrew  Johnson.1 

TEXAS.  —  Morgan  C.  Hamilton,  Sam  Bell  Maxey. 

VERMONT.  —  George  F.  Edmunds,  Justin  S.  Morrill. 

VIRGINIA. — John  W.  Johnston,  Robert  E.  Withers. 

WEST  VIRGINIA.  — Henry  G.  Davis,  Allen  T.  Caperton.* 

WISCONSIN.  —  Timothy  O.  Howe,  Angus  Cameron. 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

Samuel  J.  Randall  of  Pennsylvania,  Speaker. 

George  M.  Adams  of  Kentucky,  Clerk. 

ALABAMA. — Jere  Haralson,  Jeremiah  N.  Williams,  Taul  Bradford,  Charles  Hays, 
John  H.  Caldwell,  Goldsmith  W.  Hewitt,  William  Henry  Forney,  Burwell 
Boykin  Lewis. 

ARKANSAS. — Lucien  C.  Gause,  William  F.  Slemons,  William  W.  Wilshire,  Thomas 
Monticue  Gunter. 

CALIFORNIA.  —  William  A.  Piper,  Horace  Francis  Page,  John  K.  Lidtrell,  Peter 
Dinwiddie  Wigginton. 

COLORADO.  — James  B.  Belford. 

CONNECTICUT.  —  George  M.  Landers,  James  Phelps,  Henry  H.  Starkweather,3  Wil- 
liam H.  Barnum.* 

DELAWARE.  —  James  Williams. 

FLORIDA.  —William  J.  Purman,  Josiah  T.  Walls.5 

GEORGIA. — Julian  Hartridge,  William  E.  Smith,  Philip  Cook,  Henry  R.  Harris, 
Milton  A.  Candler,  James  II.  Blount,  William  H.  Felton,  Alexander  Hamilton 
Stephens,  Garrett  McMillan.6 

ILLINOIS.  —  Bernard  G.  Caulfleld,  Carter  H.  Harrison,  Charles  B.  Farwell^7  Stephen 
A.  Hurlbut,  Horatio  C.  Burchard,  Thomas  J.  Henderson,  Alexander  Campbell, 
Greenbury  L.  Fort,  Richard  H.  Whiting,  John  C.  Bagby,  Scott  Wike,  William 
M.  Springer,  Adlai  E.  Stevenson,  Joseph  G.  Cannon,  John  R.  Eden,  William 
A.  J.  Sparks,  William  R.  Morrison,  William  Hartzell,  William  B.  Anderson. 

INDIANA.  — Benoni  S.  Fuller,  James  D.  Williams,8  Michael  C.  Kerr,9Jeptha  D.  New, 
William  S.  Holinan,  Milton  S.  Robinson,  Franklin  Landers,  Morton  C.  Hunter, 
Thomas  J.  Cason,  William  S.  Haymond,  James  L.  Evans,  Andrew  H.  Hamil- 
ton, John  H.  Baker. 

1  Died.    David  M.  Key  appointed ;  James  E.  Bailey       *  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  Levi  Warner. 

elected.  B  Unseated.    Jesse  J.  Finle.y  admitted. 

8  Died.     Samuel  Price  appointed ;  Frank  Hereford       «  Died.    Succeeded  by  Benjamin  If.  Hill. 

elected.  7  Unseated.    J.  V.  LeMoyne  admitted. 

*  Died.    Succeeded  by  John  T.  Wait.  8  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  Andrew  Humphreys. 

»  Died.    Succeeded  by  Nathan  T.  Carr. 


APPENDIX.  703 

IOWA.  —  George  "VV.  McCrary,  John  Q.  Tufts,  Lucien  Lester  Ainsworth,  Henry  O. 
Pratt,  James  Wilson,  Ezekiel  S.  Sampson,  John  A.  Kasson,  James  Wilson 
McDill,  Addison  Oliver. 

KANSAS.  —  William  A.  Phillips,  John  P.  Goodin,  William  R.  Brown. 

KENTUCKY. — Andrew  R.  Boone,  John  Youny  Brown,  Charles  W.  Milliken,  J.  Proc- 
tor Knott,  Edward  Young  Parsons,1  Thomas  L.  Jones,  Joseph  C.  S.  Blackburn, 
Milton  J.  Durham,  John  D.  White,  John  B.  Clarke. 

LOUISIANA.  —  Randall  Lee  Gibson,  E.  John  Ellis,  Chester  B.  Darrall,  William  M, 
Levy,  Frank  Morey,'2  Charles  E.  Nash. 

MAINE.  —  John  H.  Burleigh,  William  P.  Frye,  James  G.  Elaine,8  Harris  M.  Plaisted, 
Eugene  Hale. 

MARYLAND.  —  Philip  Francis  Thomas,  Charles  B.  Roberts,  William  J.  O'Brien, 
Thomas  Swann,  Eli  Jones  Henkle,  William  Walsh. 

MASSACHUSETTS.  —  James  Buffinton,4  Benjamin  W.  Harris,  Henry  Lillie  Pierce, 
Rufus  S.  Frost,5  Nathaniel  P.  Banks,  Charles  P.  Thompson,  John  Kemble 
Tarbox,  William  Wirt  Warren,  George  F.  Hoar,  Julius  H.  Seelye,  Chester  W. 
Chapin. 

MICHIGAN. — Alpheus  S.  Williams,  Henry  Waldron,  George  Willard,  Allen  Potter, 
William  B.  Williams,  George  H.  Durand,  Omar  D.  Conger,  Nathan  B.  Bradley, 
Jay  A.  Hubbell. 

MINNESOTA.  —  Mark  H.  Dunnell,  Horace  B.  Strait,  William  S.  King. 

MISSISSIPPI. — Lucius  Q.  C.  Lamar,  Guilford  Wiley  Wells,  Hernando  D.  Money,  Otho 
R.  Singleton,  Charles  E.  Hooker,  John  R.  Lynch. 

MISSOURI. — Edward  C.  Kehr,  Erastus  Wells,  William  H.  Stone,  Robert  A.  Hatcher, 
Richard  Parks  Bland,  Charles  Henry  Morgan,  John  F.  Philips,  Benjamin  J. 
Franklin,  David  Rea,  Rezin  A.  De  Bolt,  John  B.  Clark,  jun.,  John  Montgomery 
Glover,  Aylett  Hawes  Buckner. 

NEBRASKA.  —  Lorenzo  Crounse. 

NEVADA.  — William  Woodburn. 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE. — Frank  Jones,  Samuel  N.  Bell,  Henry  W.  Blair. 

NEW  JERSEY.  —  Clement  H.  Sinnickson,  Samuel  A.  Dobbins,  Miles  Ross,  Robert 
Hamilton,  Augustus  W.  Cutler,  Frederick  H.  Teese,  Augustus  A.  Hardenbergh. 

NEW  YORK. — Henry  B.  Metcalfe,  John  G.  Schumaker,  Simeon  B.  Chittenden, 
Archibald  M.  Bliss,  Edwin  Ruthven  Meade,  Samuel  Sullivan  Cox,  Smith  Ely, 
jun.,6  Elijah  Ward,  Fernando  Wood,  Abram  Stevens  Hewitt,  Benjamin  A. 
Willis,  N.  Holmes  Odell,  John  O.  Whi^ehouse,  George  M.  Beebe,  John  H.  Bag- 
ley,  jun.,  Charles  H.  Adams,  Martin  I.  Townsend,  Andrew  Williams,  William 
A.  Wheeler,  Henry  H.  Hathorn,  Samuel  F.  Miller,  George  A.  Bagley,  Scott 
Lord,  William  H.  Baker,-  Elias  Warren  Leavenworth,  Clinton  Dugald  MacDou- 
gall,  Elbridge  G.  Lapham,  Thomas  C.  Platt,  Charles  C.  B.  Walker,  John  M. 
Davy,  George  G.  Hoskins,  Lyman  K.  Bass,  Augustus  F.  Allen.7 

NORTH  CAROLINA.  —  Jesse  J.  Yeates,  John  Adams  Hyman,  Alfred  Moore  Waddell, 
Joseph  J.  Davis,  Alfred  Moore  Scales,  Thomas  Samuel  Ashe,  William  M.  Rob- 
bins,  Robert  Brank  Vance. 

OHIO.  — Milton  Sayler,  Henry  B.  Banning,  John  Simpson  Savage,  John  A.  McMa- 
hon,  Americus  V.  Rice,  Frank  H.  Hurd,  Lawrence  Talbott  Neal,  William 
Lawrence,  Earley  F.  Poppleton,  Charles  Foster,  John  L.  Vance,  Ansel  T. 

1  Died.    Succeeded  by  Henry  Waiter  son.  *  Died.    Succeeded  by  William  W.  Crapo. 

2  Unseated.      William  B.   Spencer  admitted    and        6  Unseated.    Josiah  G.  Abbott  admitted. 

subsequently  resigned.  6  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  David  Dudley  Field. 

8  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  Edwin  Flye.  7  Died.    Succeeded  by  Nelson  I.  Norton. 


704  APPENDIX. 

Walling,  Milton  I.  Southard,  Jacob  P.  Cowan,  Nelson  H.  Yan  Vorhes,  Lorenzo 

Danford,  Laurin  D.  Wood  worth,  James  Monroe,  James  A.  Garfield,  Henry  B. 

Payne. 

OREGON.  —  George  A.  LaDow.1 
PENNSYLVANIA.  —  Chapman  Freeman,  Charles  O'Neill,  Samuel  J.  Randall,  William 

D.   Kelley,  John  Bobbins,  Washington  Townsend,  Alan  Wood,  jun.,  Kiester 

Clymer,  A.  Herr  Smith,   William  Mutchler,  Francis  D.  Collins,  Winthrop  W. 

Ketchum,2  James  B.  Eeilly,  John  B.  Packer,  Joseph  Powell,  Sobieski  Ross, 

John  Reilly,  William  S.  Stenger,  Levi  Maish,  L.  A.  Mackey,  Jacob  Turney, 

James  H.  Hopkins,  Alexander  G.  Cochrane,  John  W.  Wallace,  George  A.  Jenks, 

James  Sheakley,  Albert  G.  Egbert. 

RHODE  ISLAND.  —  Benjamin  T.  Eames,  Latimer  W.  Ballou. 
SOUTH  CAROLINA.  —  Joseph   H.   Rainey,  Edmund  W.   M.   Mackey,3  Solomon    La 

Fayette  Hoge,  Alexander  S.  Wallace,  Robert  Smalls. 
TENNESSEE.  —  William  McFarland,  Jacob  M.  Thornburgh,  George   Gibbs  Dibrell, 

Samuel  M.  Fite,*  John  Morgan  Bright,  John  F.  House,  Washington  Curran 

Whitthorne,  John  D.  C.  Atkins,  William  P.  Caldwell,  Casey  Young. 
TEXAS. — John  H.  Reagan,  David  B.  Culberson,  James  W.  Throckmorton,  Roger  Q. 

Mills,  John  Hancock,  Gustave  Schleicher. 

VERMONT.  —  Charles  H.  Joyce,  Dudley  Chase  Denison,  George  Whitman  Hendee. 
VIRGINIA.  —  Beverly  B.  Douglas,  John  Goode,jun.,  Gilbert  Carlton  Walker,  William 

H.  H.  Stowell,  George  C.  Cabell,  John  Randolph  Tucker,  John  T.  Harris,  Eppa 

Hunton,  William  Terry. 

WEST  VIRGINIA.  —  Benjamin  Wilson,  Charles  James  Faulkner,  Frank  Hereford.5 
WISCONSIN.  —  Charles  G.  Williams,  Lucien  B.  Caswell,  Henry  S.  Magoon,  William 

P.  Lynde,   Samuel  D.   Burchard,  Alanson  M.  Kimball,  Jeremiah  M.  Rusk, 

George  W.  Gate. 

DELEGATES. 

ARIZONA. — H.  S.  Stevens. 
COLORADO.  —  Thomas  M.  Patterson. 
DAKOTA.  — Jefferson  P.  Kidder. 
IDAHO.  —  Thomas  W.  Bennett.6 
MONTANA.  —  Martin  Maginnis. 
NEW  MEXICO.  —  Stephen  B.  Elkins. 
UTAH.  —  George  Q.  Cannon. 
WASHINGTON.  —  Orange  Jacobs. 
WYOMING.  —  William  R.  Steele. 

1  Died.    Succeeded  by  Lafayette  Lane.  *  Died.    Succeeded  by  Haywood  Y.  Riddie. 

8  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  William  //.  Stanton.  8  Resigned  January  31, 1877. 

8  Unseated.    Charles  W.  Buttz  admitted.  •  Unseated.    Stephen  S.  Fenn  admitted. 


APPENDIX.  705 

APPENDIX  H. 

FORTY-FIFTH  CONGRESS. 

BEPUBLICANS  IN  ROMAN;  DEMOCRATS  IN  ITALIC. 

SENATE. 

William  A.  Wheeler  of  New  York,  President. 
George  C.  Gorham  of  California,  Secretary. 
ALABAMA.  —  George  E.  Spencer,  John  T.  Morgan. 
ARKANSAS.  —  Stephen  W.  Dorsey,  Augustus  H,  Garland. 
CALIFORNIA.  —  Aaron  A.  Sargent,  Newton  Booth. 
COLORADO.  —  Jerome  B.  Chaffee,  Henry  M.  Teller. 
CONNECTICUT.  —  William  W.  Eaton,  William  U.  Barnum. 
DELAWARE.  —  Thomas  F.  Bayard,  Eli  Saulsbury. 
FLORIDA.  —  Simon  B.  Conover,  Charles  W.  Jones. 
GEORGIA. —  John  B.  Gordon,  Benjamin  H.  Hill. 
ILLINOIS.  —  Richard  J.  Oglesby,  David  Davis. 
INDIANA.  —  Oliver  P.  Morton,1  Joseph  E.  McDonald. 
IOWA.  —  William  B.  Allison,  Samuel  J.  Kirkwood. 
KANSAS.  —  John  J.  Ingalls,  Preston  B.  Plumb. 
KENTUCKY.  —  Thomas  C.  McCreery,  James  B.  Beck. 
LOUISIANA.  —  William  P.  Kellogg,  James  B.  Eustis. 
MAINE.  —  Hannibal  Hamlin,  James  G.  Blaine. 
MARYLAND.  —  George  R.  Dennis,  W.  Pinkney  Whyte. 
MASSACHUSETTS.  —  Henry  L.  Dawes,  George  F.  Hoar. 
MICHIGAN.  —  Thomas  W.  Ferry,  Isaac  P.  Christiancy.2 
MINNESOTA.  —  William  Windom,  Samuel  J.  R.  McMillan.      ' 
MISSISSIPPI. —  Blanche  K.  Bruce,  Lucius  Q.  C.  Lamar. 
MISSOURI.  —Francis  M.  Cockrell,  Lewis  V.  Bogy.3 
NEBRASKA.  —  Algernon  S.  Paddock,  Alvin  Saunders. 
NEVADA.  —  John  P.  Jones,  William  Sharon. 
NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  —  Bainbridge  Wadleigh,  E.  H.  Rollins. 
NEW  JERSEY.  —  Theodore  F.  Randolph,  John  R.  MacPherson. 
NEW  YORK.  —  Roscoe  Conkling,  Francis  Kernan. 
NORTH  CAROLINA.  —  Matt  W.  Ransom,  Augustus  S.  Merrimon. 
OHIO.  —  John  Sherman,4  Allen  G.  Thurman. 
OREGON.  —  John  H.  Mitchell,  La  Fayette  Grover. 
PENNSYLVANIA.  —  William  A.  Wallace,  Simon  Cameron.6 
RHODE  ISLAND.  —  Henry  B.  Anthony,  Ambrose  E.  Burnside. 
SOUTH  CAROLINA.  —  John  J.  Patterson,  Manning  C.  Butler. 
TENNESSEE.  — James  E.  Bailey,  Isham  G.  Harris. 
TEXAS.  —  Sam  B.  Maxey,  Richard  Coke. 
VERMONT.  —  George  F.  Edmunds,  Justin  S.  Morrill. 
VIRGINIA.  —John  W.  Johnston,  Robert  E.  Withers. 
WEST  VIRGINIA.  — Henry  G.  Davis,  Frank  Hereford. 
WISCONSIN.  —  Timothy  O.  Howe,  Angus  Cameron. 

i  Died.    Succeeded  by  Daniel  W.  Voorhees.  *  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  Stanley  Matthews. 

*  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  Zachariah  Chandler.  B  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  J.  Donald  Cameron. 

8  Died.    David  H.  Armstrong  appointed ;  James  Shields  elected. 
VOL.  II.  46 


706  APPENDIX. 

HOUSE  OP  REPRESENTATIVES. 

Samuel  J.  Randall  of  Pennsylvania,  Speaker. 

George  M.  Adams  of  Kentucky,  Clerk. 

ALABAMA.  —  James  T.  Jones,  Hilary  A.  Herbert,  Jeremiah  N.  Williams,  Charles  M. 

Shelley,  Robert  F.  Ligon,  Goldsmith  W.  Hewitt,  William  H.  Forney,  William 

W.  Garth. 
ARKANSAS. — Lucien  C.  Gause,  William  F.  Slemons,  Jordan  E.  Cravens,  Thomas  M. 

Gunter. 

CALIFORNIA.  — Horace  Davis,  Horace  F.  Page,  John  K.  Luttrell,  Romualdo  Pacheco.1 
COLORADO.  —  T.  M.  Patterson. 

CONNECTICUT. — George  M.  Landers,  James  Phelps,  John  T.  Wait,  Levi  Warner. 
DELAWARE. — James  Williams. 

FLORIDA.  — Robert  H.  M.  Davidson,  Horatio  Bisbee,  jun.2 
GEORGIA. — Julian  Hartridye,^  William  E.  Smith,  Philip  Cook,  Henry  R.  Harris, 

Milton  A.    Candler,  James  H.   Blount,    William  H.   Felton,   Alexander   H. 

Stephens,  Hiram  P.  Bell. 
ILLINOIS. — William  Aldrich,  Carter  H.  Harrison,  Lorenzo  Brentano,  William  La- 

throp,  Horatio  C.  Burchard,  Thomas  J.  Henderson,  Philip  C.  Hayes,  Greenbury 

L.  Fort,  Thomas  A.  Boyd,  B.  F.  Marsh,  Robert  M.  Knapp,  William  M.  Springer, 

Thomas  F.  Tipton,  Joseph  G.  Cannon,  John  R.  Eden,  William  A.  J.  Sparks, 

William  R.  Morrison,  William  Hartzell,  Richard  W.  Townshend. 
INDIANA. — Benoni  S.  Fuller,  Thomas  R.  Cobb,  George  A.  Bicknell,  Leonidas  Sexton, 

Thomas  M.  Browne,  Milton  S.  Robinson,  John  Hanna,  Morton  C.  Hunter,  M. 

D.  White,  William  H.  Calkins,  James  L.  Evans,  Andrew  H.  Hamilton,  John  H. 

Baker. 
IOWA.  — Joseph  C.  Stone,  Hiram  Price,  Theodore  W.  Burdick,  Nathaniel  C.  Deering, 

Rush  Clark,  Ezekiel  S.  Sampson,  Henry  J.  B.  Cummings,  William  F.  Sapp, 

Addison  Oliver. 

KANSAS.— William  A.  Phillips,  Dudley  C.  Haskell,  Thomas  Ryan. 
KENTUCKY. — Andrew  R.  Boone,  James  A.  McKenzie,  John  W.  Caldwell,  J.  Proctor 

Knott,  Albert  S.  Willis,  John  G.  Carlisle,  Joseph  C.  S.  Blackburn,  Milton  J. 

Durham,  Thomas  Turner,  John  B.  Clarke. 
LOUISIANA.  —  Randall  L.  Gibson,  E.  John  Ellis,  Chester  B.  Darrall,4  Joseph  B.  Elam, 

John  E.  Leonard,5  Edward  W.  Robertson. 
MAINE.  —  Thomas  B.  Reed,  William  P.  Frye,  Stephen  D.  Lindsey,  Llewellyn  Powers, 

Eugene  Hale. 
MARYLAND.  —  Daniel  M.  Henry,   Charles  B.   Roberts,  William  Kimmell,  Thomas 

Swann,  Eli  J.  Henkle,  William  Walsh. 
MASSACHUSETTS.  —  William  W.  Crapo,  Benjamin  W.  Harris,  Walbridge  A.  Field,6 

Leopold  Morse,  Nathaniel  P.  Banks,  George  B.  Loring,  Benjamin  F.  Butler, 

William  Claflin,  William  W.  Rice,  Amasa  Norcross,  George  D.  Robinson. 
MICHIGAN. — Alpheus  S.  Williams,7  Edwin  Willits,  Jonas  H.  McGowan,  Edwin  W. 

Keightley,  John  W.  Stone,  Mark  S.  Brewer,  Omar  D.  Conger,  Charles  C.  Ells- 
worth, Jay  A.  Hubbell. 

MINNESOTA.  —  Mark  H.  Dunnell,  Horace  B.  Strait,  Jacob  H.  Stewart. 
MISSISSIPPI. — Henry  L.  Mnldrow,  Van  H.  Manning,  Hernando  D.  Money,  Otho  R. 

Singleton,  Charles  E.  Hooker,  James  R.  Chalmers. 

1  Unseated.    Peter  D.  Wigginton  admitted.  *  Unseated.    Joseph  H.  Acklen  admitted. 

2  Unseated.    Jesse  J.  Finley  admitted.  B  Died.    Succeeded  by  John  S.  Young. 
»  Died.    Succeeded  by  William  B.  Fleming.                             6  Unseated.    Benjamin  Dean  admitted. 

'  Died  December  20, 1878. 


APPENDIX.  707 

MISSOURI.  —  Anthony  Ittner,  Nathan  Cole,  Lyne  S.  Metcalf,  Robert  A.  Hatcher, 
Richard  P.  Bland,  Charles  H.  Morgan,  Thomas  T.  Crittenden,  Benjamin  J. 
Franklin,  David  Rea,  Henry  M.  Pollard,  John  B.  Clark,  jun.,  John  M.  Glover, 
Aylett  II.  Buckner. 

NEBRASKA.  —  Frank  Welch.1 

NEVADA.  — Thomas  Wren. 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE. — Frank  Jones,  James  F.  Briggs,  Henry  W.  Blair. 

NEW  JERSEY.  —  Clement  H.  Sinnickson,  John  H.  Pugh,  Miles  Ross,  Alvah  A.  Clark, 
Augustus  W.  Cutler,  Thomas  B.  Peddle,  Augustus  A.  Hardenbergh. 

NEW  YORK.  —  James  W.  Covert,  William  D.  Veeder,  Simeon  B.  Chittenden,  Archi- 
bald M.  Bliss,  Nicolas  Midler,  Samuel  S.  Cox,  Anthony  Eickhoff,  Anson  G. 
McCook,  Fernando  Wood,  Abram  S.  Hewitt,  Benjamin  A.  Willis,  Clarkson 
N.  Potter,  John  H.  Ketcham,  George  M.  Beebe,  Stephen  L.  Mayham,  Terence 
J.  Quinn,2  Martin  I.  Townsend,  Andrew  Williams,  Amaziah  B.  James,  John 
H.  Starin,  Solomon  Bundy,  George  A.  Bagley,  William  J.  Bacon,  William  H. 
Baker,  Frank  Hiscock,  John  H.  Camp,  Elbridge  G.  Lapham,  Jeremiah  W. 
Dwight,  John  N.  Hungerford,  E.  Kirke  Hart,  Charles  B.  Benedict,  David  N. 
Lockwood,  George  W.  Patterson. 

NORTH  CAROLINA.  — Jesse  J.  Yeates,  Curtis  H.  Brogden,  Alfred  M.  Waddell,  Joseph  J. 
Davis,  Alfred  M.  Scales,  Walter  L.  Steele,  William  M.  Robbins,  Robert  B.  Vance. 

OHIO.  —  Milton  Sayler,  Henry  B.  Banning,  Mills  Gardner,  John  A.  McMahon, 
Americus  V.  Rice,  Jacob  D.  Cox,  Henry  L.  Dickey,  Joseph  W.  Keifer,  John 
S,  Jones,  Charles  Foster,  Henry  S.  Neal,  Thomas  Ewing,  Milton  L  Southard, 
Ebenezer  R.  Finley,  Nelson  H.  Van  Vorhes,  Lorenzo  Danford,  William  McKin- 
ley,  jim.,  James  Monroe,  James  A.  Garfield,  Amos  Townsend. 

OREGON.  — Richard  Williams. 

PENNSYLVANIA.  —  Chapman  Freeman,  Charles  O'Neill,  Samuel  J.  Randall,  William 
D.  Kelley,  Alfred  C.  Harmer,  William  Ward,  I.  Newton  Evans,  Hiester  Clymer, 
A.  Herr  Smith,  Samuel  A.  Bridges,  Francis  D.  Collins,  Hendrick  B.  Wright, 
James  B.  Reilly,  John  W.  Killinger,  Edward  Overton,  jim.,  John  T.  Mitchell, 
Jacob  M.  Campbell,  William  S.  Stenger,  Levi  Maish,  L.  A.  Mackey,  Jacob 
Turney,  Russell  Errett,  Thomas  M.  Bayne,  William  S.  Shallenberger,  Harry 
White,  John  M.  Thompson,  Lewis  F.  Watson. 

RHODE  ISLAND.  —  Benjamin  T.  Eames,  Latimer  W.  Ballou. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA.  —  Joseph  H.  Rainey,  Richard  H.  Cain,  D.  Wyatt  Aiken,  John  II. 
Evins,  Robert  Smalls. 

TENNESSEE.  —  James  H.  Randolph,  Jacob  M.  Thornburgh,  George  G.  Dibrell,  Hay- 
wood  Y.  Riddle,  John  M.  Bright,  John  F.  House,  Washington  C.  Whitthorne, 
John  D.  C.  Atkins,  William  P.  Caldwell,  Casey  Young. 

TEXAS.  —John  H.  Reagan,  David  B.  Culberson,  James  W.  Throckmorton,  Roger  Q. 
Mills,  DeWitt  C.  Giddings,  Gustave  Schleicher* 

VERMONT.  —  Charles  H.  Joyce,  Dudley  C.  Denison,  George  W.  Hendee. 

VIRGINIA.  —Beverly  B.  Douglas,*  John  Goode,jun.,  Gilbert  C.  Walker,  Joseph  Jor- 
gensen,  George  C.  Cabell,  John  R.  Tucker,  John  T.  Harris,  Eppa  Hunton, 
Auburn  L.  Pridemore. 

WEST  VIRGINIA. — Benjamin  Wilson,  Benjamin  F.  Martin,  John  E.  Kenna. 

WISCONSIN.  —  Charles  G.  Williams,  Lucien  B.  Caswell,  George  C.  Hazelton,  William 
P.  Lynde,  Edward  S.  Bragg,  Gabriel  Bouck,  Herman  L.  Humphrey,  Thaddeus 
C.  Pound. 

1  Died.    Succeeded  by  Thomas  J.  Majors.  «  Died  January  10,  1879. 

*  Died.    Succeeded  by  John  M.  Bailey.  *  Died.    Succeeded  by  R.  L,  T.  Beal*. 


708  APPENDIX 

DELEGATES. 

ARIZONA.  —  H.  S.  Stevens. 
DAKOTA.  —  Jefferson  P.  Kidder. 
IDAHO.  —  Stephen  S.  Fenn. 
MONTANA.  —  Martin.  Mayinnis. 
NEW  MEXICO.  —  Trinidad  Romero. 
UTAH.  —  George  Q.  Cannon. 
WASHINGTON.  —  Orange  Jacobs. 
WYOMING.  —  William  W.  Corlett. 


APPENDIX   I. 

FORTY-SIXTH  CONGRESS. 

REPUBLICANS  IN  ROMAN;  DEMOCRATS  IN  ITALICS;  GREENBACKEES  I2T 
SMALL   CAPITALS. 

SENATE. 

William  A.  Wheeler  of  New  York,  President. 
John  C.  Burch  of  Tennessee,  Secretary. 
ALABAMA. — John  T.  Morgan,  George  S.  Houston.1 
ARKANSAS.  —  Augustus  H.  Garland,  James  D.  Walker. 
CALIFORNIA. —Newton  Booth,  James  T.' Farley. 
COLORADO.  —  Henry  M.  Teller,  Nathaniel  P.  Hill. 
CONNECTICUT.  —  William  W.  Eaton,  Orville  H.  Platt. 
DELAWARE.  —  Thomas  F.  Bayard,  Eli  Saulsbury. 
FLORIDA.  —  Charles  W.  Jones,  Wilkinson  Call. 
GEORGIA.  —  Benjamin  H.  Hill,  John  B.  Gordon.2 
ILLINOIS. — David  Davis,  John  A.  Logan. 
INDIANA.  —  Joseph  E.  McDonald,  Daniel  W.  Voorhees. 
IOWA.  —  Samuel  J.  Kirkwood,  William  B.  Allison. 
KANSAS.  —  Preston  B.  Plumb,  John  James  Ingalls. 
KENTUCKY.  — James  B.  Beck,  John  S.  Williams. 
LOUISIANA.  — William  Pitt  Kellogg,  Benjamin  F.  Jonas. 
M^LINE. — Hannibal  Hamlin,  James  G.  Elaine. 
MARYLAND.  —  William  Pinkney  Whyte,  James  B.  Groome. 
MASSACHUSETTS.  —  Henry  L.  Dawes,  George  F.  Hoar. 
MICHIGAN.  —  Zachariah  Chandler,3  Thomas  W.  Ferry. 
MINNESOTA.  —  Samuel  J.  R.  McMillan,  William  Windom. 
MISSISSIPPI. — Blanche  K.  Bruce,  Lucius  Q.  C.  Lamar. 
MISSOURI.  —  Francis  M.  Cockrell,  James  Shields.* 
NEBRASKA.  —  Algernon  S.  Paddock,  Alvin  Saunders. 
NEVADA.  —  William  Sharon,  John  P.  Jones. 
NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  —  Edward  H.  Rollins,  Henry  W.  Blair.5 
NEW  JERSEY.  —  Theodore  F.  Randolph,  John  R.  McPherson. 
NEW  YORK. — Francis  Kernan,  Roscoe  Conkling. 
NORTH  CAROLINA.  —  Matt  W.  Ransom,  Zebulon  B.  Vance. 
OHIO.  —  Allen  G.  Thitrman,  George  II.  Pendleton. 

1  Died.    Luke  Pryor  appointed;    James  L.  Pugh  4  Died.    Succeeded  by  George  6.  Vest. 

elected.  6  Charles  H.   Bell    served   under   appointment  to 
-  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  Joseph  E.  Brown.  June  20,  1879. 

»  Died.    Succeeded  by  Henry  P.  Baldwin. 


APPENDIX.  709 

OREGON.  —  Lafayette  Grover,  James  H.  Slater. 
PENNSYLVANIA.  —  William  A.  Wallace,  J.  Donald  Cameron. 
RHODE  ISLAND. — Ambrose  E.  Burnside,  Henry  B.  Anthony. 
SOUTH  CAROLINA.  —  Manning  C.  Butler,  Wade  Hampton. 
TENNESSEE.  — James  E.  Bailey,  Isham  G.  Harris. 
TEXAS.  —  -Sam  Bell  Maxey,  Richard  Coke. 
VERMONT.  —  George  F.  Edmunds,  Justin  S.  Morrill. 
VIRGINIA.  —  Robert  E.  Withers,  John  W.  Johnston. 
WEST  VIRGINIA.  —  Frank  Hereford,  Henry  G.  Davis. 
WISCONSIN.  — Angus  Cameron,  Matthew  H.  Carpenter.1 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 
Samuel  J.  Randall  of  Pennsylvania,  Speaker. 
Geor<je  M.  Adams  of  Kentucky,  Clerk. 
ALABAMA.  —  Thomas  H.  Herndon,  Hilary  A.  Herbert,  William  J.  Samford,  Charles 

M.    Shelley,    Thomas    Williams,    Burwell   B.    Lewis,2   William   H.    Forney, 

WILLIAM  M.  LOWE. 
ARKANSAS.  —  Poindexter  Dunn,  William  F.  Slemons,  Jordan  E.  Cravens,  Thomas  M. 

Gunter. 
CALIFORNIA.  —  Horace    Davis,    Horace    F.    Page,    Campbell   P.   Berry,  Romualdo 

Pacheco. 

COLORADO.  —  James  B.  Belford. 

CONNECTICUT.  —  Joseph  R.  Hawley,  James  Phelps,  John  T.  Wait,  Frederick  Miles. 
DELAWARE.  —  Edward  L.  Martin. 
FLORIDA.  —  Robert  H.  M.  Davidson,  Noble  A.  Hull.8 
GEORGIA.  —  John  C.  Nicholls,  William  E.  Smith,  Philip  Cook,  Henry  Persons,  Neil 

J.  Hammond,  James  H.  Blount,   William  H.  Felton,  Alexander  H.  Stephens, 

Emory  Speer. 
ILLINOIS.  —  William  Aldrich,  George  R.  Davis,  Hiram  Barber,  John  C.   Sherwin, 

Robert  M.  A.  Hawk,  Thomas  J.  Henderson,  Philip  C.  Hayes,  Greenbury  L. 

Fort,  Thomas  A.  Boyd,  Benjamin  F.  Marsh,  James  W.  Singleton,  William  M. 

Springer,  ADLAI  E.  STEVENSON,  Joseph  G.  Cannon,  ALBERT  P.  FORSYTHE, 

William  A.  J.  Sparks,  William  R.  Morrison,  John  R.  Thomas,  Richard  W. 

Townshend. 
INDIANA. — William  Heilman,  Thomas  R.  Cobb,  George  A.  Bicknell,  Jeptha  D.  New, 

Thomas  M.  Browne,  William  R.  Myers,  GILBERT  DE  LA  MATYR,  Abram  J. 

Hostetler,  Godlove  S.  Orth,  William  H.  Calkins,  Calvin  Cowgill,   Walpole  G. 

Colerick,  John  H.  Baker. 
IOWA.  —  Moses  A.  McCoid,  Hiram  Price,  Thomas  Updegraff,  Nathaniel  C.  Deering, 

William  G.  Thompson,  JAMES  B.  WEAVER,  EDWARD  H.  GILLETTE,  William 

F.  Sapp,  Cyrus  C.  Carpenter. 

KANSAS.  —  John  A.  Anderson,  Dudley  C.  Haskell,  Thomas  Ryan. 
KENTUCKY.  —  Oscar  Turner,  James  A.  McKenzie,  John   W.  Caldwell,  J.  Proctor 

Knott,  Albert  S.   Willis,  John  G.  Carlisle,  Joseph  C.  S.  Blackburn,  Philip  B. 

Thompson,  jun.,  Thomas  Turner,  Elijah  C.  Phister. 
LOUISIANA.  —  Randall  L.  Gibson,  E.  John  Ellis,  Joseph  H.  Acklen,  Joseph  B.  Elam, 

J.  Floyd  King,  Edward  W.  Robertson. 
MAINE.  —  Thomas  B.  Reed,  William  P.  Frye,  Stephen  D.  Lindsey,  GEORGE  W.  LADD, 

THOMPSON  H.  MURCH. 

1  Died  February  24,  1881.  2  Resigned.     Succeeded  by  Newton  N.  Clements. 

3  Unseated.    Horatio  Bisbee,  juu.,  admitted. 


710  APPENDIX. 

MARYLAND.  —  Daniel  M.  Henry,  J.  Frederick  C.  Talbott,  William  Eimmel,  Robert 
M.  McLane,  Eli  J.  Henkle,  Milton  G.  Urner. 

MASSACHUSETTS.  —  William  W.  Crapo,  Benjamin  W.  Harris,  Walbridge  A.  Field, 
Leopold  Morse,  Selwyn  Z.  Bowman,  George  B.  Loring,  William  A.  Russell, 
William  Claflin,  William  W.  Rice,  Amasa  Norcross,  George  D.  Robinson. 

MICHIGAN.  —  John  S.  Newberry,  Edwin  Willits,  Jonas  H.  McGowan,  Julius  C.  Bur- 
rows, John  W.  Stone,  Mark  S.  Brewer,  Omar  D.  Conger,  Roswell  G.  Horr,  Jay 
A.  Hubbell. 

MINNESOTA.  —  Mark  H.  Dunnell,  Henry  Poehler,  William  D.  Washburn. 

MISSISSIPPI. — Henry  L.  Muldrow,  Van  H.  Manning,  Hernando  D.  Money,  Otho  R. 
Singleton,  Charles  E.  Hooker,  James  R.  Chalmers. 

MISSOURI. — Martin  L.  Clardy,  Erastus  Weils,  R.  Graham  Frost,  Lowndes  H.  Davis, 
Richard  P.  Bland,  James  R.  Waddill,  Alfred  M.  Lay,1  Samuel  L.  Sawyer, 
NICHOLAS  FORD,  Gideon  F.  Rothwell,  John  B.  Clark,  jun.,  William  H.  Hatch, 
Ayle.tt  H.  Buckner. 

NEBRASKA.  —Edward  K.  Valentine. 

NEVADA.  —  Rollin  M.  Daggett. 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  —  Joshua  G.  Hall,  James  F.  Briggs,  Evarts  W.  Farr.2 

NEW  JERSEY.  —George  M.  Robeson,  Hezekiah  B.  Smith,  Miles  Ross,  Alvah  A.  Clark, 
Charles  H.  Voorhis,  John  L.  Blake,  Lewis  A.  Brigham. 

NEW  YORK. — James  W.  Covert,  Daniel  O'Reilly,  Simeon  B.  Chittenden,  Archibald 
M.  Bliss,  Nicholas  Midler,  Samuel  S.  Cox,  Edwin  Einstein,  Anson  G.  McCook, 
Fernando  Wood,3  James  O'Brien,  Levi  P.  Morton,  Waldo  Hutchins,  John  H. 
Ketcham,  John  W.  Ferdon,  William  Lounsbery,  John  M.  Bailey,  Walter  A. 
Wood,  John  Hammond,  Amaziah  B.  James,  John  H.  Starin,  David  Wilber, 
Warner  Miller,  Cyrus  D.  Prescott,  Joseph  Mason,  Frank  Hiscock,  John  H. 
Camp,  Elbridge  G.  Lapham,  Jeremiah  W.  Dwight,  David  P.  Richardson,  John 
Van  Voorhis,  Richard  Crowley,  Ray  V.  Pierce,4  Henry  Van  Aernam. 

NORTH  CAROLINA. —Joseph  J.  Martin,5  William.  H.  Kitchin,  Daniel  L.  Russell, 
Joseph  J.  Davis,  Alfred  M.  Scales,  Walter  L.  Steele,  Robert  F.  Armfield, 
Robert  B.  Vance. 

OHIO.  —  Benjamin  Butterworth.  Thomas  L.  Young,  John  A.  McMahon,  J.  Warren 
Keifer,  Benjamin  Le  Fevre,  William  D.  Hill,  Frank  II.  Hurd,  Ebenezer  B. 
Finley,  George  L.  Converse,  Thomas  Ewing,  Henry  L.  Dickey,  Henry  S.  Neal, 
Adoniram  J.  Warner,  Gibson  Atherton,  George  W.  Geddes,  William  McKinley, 
jun.,  James  Monroe,  Jonathan  T.  Updegraff,  James  A.  Garfield,6  Amos  Town- 
send. 

OREGON.  —  John  Whiteaker. 

PENNSYLVANIA.  —  Henry  H.  Bingham,  Charles  O'Neill,  Samuel  J.  Randall,  William 
D.  Kelley,  Alfred  C.  Harmer,  William  Ward,  William  Godshalk,  Hiester 
Clymer,  A.  Herr  Smith,  Reuben  K.  Bachman,  Robert  Klotz,  HENDRICK  B. 
WRIGHT,  John  W.  Ryon,  John  W.  Killinger,  Edward  Overton,  jun.,  John  I. 
Mitchell,  Alexander  H.  Coffroth,  Horatio  G.  Fisher,  Frank  E.  Bcltzhoover, 
SETH  H.  YOCUM,  Morgan  R.  Wise,  Russell  Errett,  Thomas  M.  Bayne,  William 
S.  Shallenberger,  Harry  White,  Samuel  B.  Dick,  James  H.  Osmer. 

RHODE  ISLAND. — Nelson  W.  Aldrich,  Latimer  W.  Ballou. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA. — John  S.  Richardson,  Michael  P.  O'Connor,  D.  Wyatt  Aiken, 
John  H.  Evins,  George  D.  Tillman. 

'  Died.    Succeeded  by  John  F.  Philips.  *  Resigned.    Succeeded  by  Jonathan  Scoville. 

2  Died.    Succeeded  by  Ossian  Ray.  e  Unseated.    Jew  J.  Yeates  admitted. 

5  bivid  February  13,  1881.  6  Resigned.     Succeeded  by  Ezra  B.  Taylor. 


APPENDIX.  711 

TENNESSEE. — Robert  L.    Taylor,  Leonidas  C.  Houk,   George  G.  Dibrell,  Benton 

McMillin,  John  M.  Bright,  John  F.  House,  Washington  C.  Whitthome,  John 

D.  C.  Atkins,  Charles  B.  Simonton,  Casey  Young. 
TEXAS.  —John  H.  Reagan,  David  B.  Culberson,  Olin   Wellborn,  Roger  Q.  Mills, 

GEORGE  W.  JONES,  Columbus  Upson.       , 

VERMONT.  —  Charles  H.  Joyce,  James  M.  Tyler,  Bradley  Barlow. 
VIRGINIA.  —  Richard  L.  T.  Beale,  John  Goode,  Joseph  E.  Johnston,  Joseph  Jorgen- 

sen,  George  C.  Cabell,  John  Randolph  Tucker,  John  T.  Harris,  Eppa  Hunton, 

James  B.  Richmond. 

WEST  VIRGINIA.  —  Benjamin  Wilson,  Benjamin  F.  Martin,  John  E.  Kenna. 
WISCONSIN.  —  Charles  G.  Williams,  Lucien  B.  Caswell,  George  C.  Hazelton,  Peter  V. 

Deuster,  Edward  S.  Bragg,  Gabriel  Bouck,  Herman  L.  Humphrey,  Thaddeus 

C.  Pound. 

DELEGATES. 

ARIZONA.  —  John  G.  Campbell. 
DAKOTA.  —  Granville  G.  Bennett. 
IDAHO.  —  George  Ainslie. 
MONTANA.  —  Martin  Maginnis. 
NEW  MEXICO.  —  Mariano  S.  Otero. 
UTAH.  —  George  Q.  Cannon. 
WASHINGTON.  —  Thomas  H.  Brents. 
WYOMING.  —  Stephen  W.  Downey. 


INDEX    OF   NAMES. 


Abbott,  Joseph  C.,  ii.  447, 

506. 
Abbott,  Josiah  G.,  i.  524;  ii. 

221,  397,  577,  585. 
Abbott,  Leon,  ii.  577. 
Adams,  Charles  Francis,  i. 

77,  82,  101,  2(50,  261,  263-266, 

571, 572, 577;  ii.  269,  478, 488, 

489,  498,  523,  525. 
Adams,  Green,  i.  278. 
Adams,  James  H.,  i.  175. 
Adams,  John,  i.  20,  106,  185, 

204,  252,  431,  540-542;  ii.  55, 

155,  307,  422,  424,  456,  644. 
Adams,  John  Quincy,  i.  13, 

14,  23,  24,  38,  39,  42,  48,  51, 

52,  57,  59,  60,  64,  66,  68-71, 

106,  191,  193,  207,  283,  329, 

330,  522,  541 ;  ii.  65,  307,  309, 

422,  538,  618,  646. 
Adams,  John  Quincy  (2d),  ii. 

534. 
Aiken,  William,  i.  122;    ii. 

212,  529. 
Akerman,  Amos  T.,  ii.  526, 

539. 
Aldrich,  Nelson  W.,  ii.  569, 

655. 

Allen,  Elisha  H.,  ii.  437. 
Allen,  Philip,  i.  197. 
Allen,  William,  i.  53,  524;  ii. 

549,  568,  577,  578. 
Alley,  John  B.,  i.  331,  420; 

ii.  320. 
Allison,  William  B.,  i.  501; 

ii.  256,  322,  539,  605,  607. 
Ambler,  Jacob  A.,  ii.  433. 
Ames,  Adelbert,  ii.  30,  447. 
Ames,  Fisher,  i.  183. 
Ames,  Oakes,  i.  509. 
Ames,  Oliver,  i.  509. 
Anderson,  Nicholas  L.,  ii.  31. 
Anderson,  Robert,  i.  295,  296, 

300. 

Anderson,  William  C.,  i.  278. 
Andrew,  John  A.,  i.  164,  238, 

305,  365,444,517;  ii.  224. 
Andrews,  Charles,  ii.  386. 
Angell,  James  B.,  ii.  655. 
Anthony,  Henry  B.,  i.  266, 

320,   323,   425,  452;  ii.   126, 

374,  457,  514,  675. 
Appleton,  William,  i.  331. 
Argyll,  Duke  of,  ii.  477. 
Armstrong,  William  H.,  ii. 


Arnell,  Samuel,  ii.  225. 
Arnold,  Isaac  N.,  i.  505,  506. 
Arthur,  Chester  A.,  ii.  660, 

666,  667. 

Ashburn,  G.  W.,  ii.  224. 
Ashe,  Thomas  S.,  ii.  212. 
Ashley,  Chester,  i.  174. 
Ashley,  James  M.,  i.  328, 504, 

505,  507, 536;  ii.  342,  343, 357. 
Ashmun,  George,  i.  164. 
Astor,  John  Jacob,  i.  8. 
Astor,  John  Jacob  (2d),  ii. 

224. 

Atchison,  David  R.,  i.  115. 
Atherton,  Charles  G.,  i.  24. 
Atkins,  J.  D.  C.,  ii.  212,  550, 

607. 
Atkinson,  Edward,  ii.  521, 

525. 

Augur,  C.  C.,  ii.  581. 
Averill,  John  T.,  ii.  511. 

Babcock,  O.  E.,  ii.  458,  459, 

463. 
Badger,  George  E.,  i.  76,  90, 

117,  131,  311. 

Bagley,  George  A.,  ii.  601. 
Bailey,  Gamaliel,  i.  22. 
Baird,  Absalom,  ii.  234. 
Baker,  Conrad,  ii.  405,  526. 
Baker,   Edward    D.,   i.   141, 

266,  287,  321,  344,  345,  350, 

382,  383;  ii.  679. 
Baker,  Jehu,  ii.  122, 123,  196, 

257. 

Baker,  John  H.,  ii.  601. 
Baldwin,  Abraham,  i.  183. 
Baldwin,  Augustus  C.,  i.  538. 
Baldwin,  Henry,  i.  58,  196. 
Baldwin,  Henry  P.,  ii.  569. 
Baldwin,  John,  i.  311. 
Baldy,  George,  ii.  235. 
Bancroft,  George,  i.  360;  ii. 

16,  501 ,  502. 
Banks,  Nathaniel  P.,  i.  122, 

197,  365,  368,  386,  448,  497; 

ii.  30,  39,  46,  117,  118,  224, 

231,  255,  257,  334,  335. 
Banning,  Henry  B.,  ii.  542. 
Barker,  James  M.,  ii.  664. 
Barlow,  Francis  C.,  ii.  231. 
Barnum,  Henry  A.,  ii.  231. 
Barnum,  William  H.,  ii.  528, 

640. 

Bartholomew,  Lynn,  ii.  571. 
Bass,  Lyman  K.,  ii-  550. 


Bates,  Edward,  i.  167,  168, 

284,285;  ii.  62. 
Bates,  Isaac  C.,  i.  191. 
Baxter,  Elisha,  ii.  40,  41. 
Bayard,  James  A.,  i.  105, 162, 

315,424;  ii.  375,  397,530. 
Bayard,  Thomas  F.,  ii.  443- 

446,  528,  557,  563,  578,  583, 

585,  588,  609,  667,  668. 
Bayne,  Thomas  M.,  ii,  602. 
Beaman,  Fernando  C.,  i.  332. 
Beatty,  John,  ii.  31,  433. 
Beauregard,  P.  G.  T.,  i.  296, 

337,  348,  363. 

Beaver,  James  A.,  ii.  31,  660. 
Beck,  James  B.,  ii.  290,  291, 

415,  436,  597,  605. 
Belknap,  William  W.,  ii.  427, 

539. 

Bell,  James,  i.  197. 
Bell,  John,  i.  60,  61,  72,  89, 

108,  117,  142,  1(53,  164,  170, 

171,  197,  215,  216,  229,  268, 

301,  309-311,  438,  498;  ii.  6, 

411,  443. 
Belmont,  August,  i.  525,  526; 

ii.  394,  397,  398,  529. 
Benjamin,  Judah  P.,  i.  117, 

119,  151,  160,  233,  248-253, 

348,  349,  377,  554;  ii.  14,  22- 

24,  311. 

Bennett,  James,  ii.  531. 
Benton,  Jacob,  ii.  288. 
Benton,   Thomas  H.   (Mo.), 

i.  14,  31,  33,  44,  50,  64,  70, 

75,  76,  89,  95,  97,  115,  119, 

127,  191,  200,   273,   318;  ii. 

439,  545,  599. 
Benton,  Thomas  H.  (Tenn.), 

ii.  225. 
Bernard,  Montagu,  i.  577;  ii. 

496,  678. 
Berrien,    John    McPherson, 

i.  53,  70,  89,  108,  193. 
Bidwell,  John,  ii.  123. 
Bigler,  William,  i.  524,  526; 

ii.  221,  397. 

Billings,  Frederick,  ii.  665. 
Bingham,  D.  H.,  ii.  224. 
Bingham,  Henry  H.,  ii.  569, 

638,  639. 
Bingham,   John    A.,   i.  266, 

328,   419,   464,  465,  498;   ii. 

121,  127,  133,  137,  175,  215, 

252,  259,  347,  356,  361-363, 

373,  386,  453,  454,  464. 
713 


714 


INDEX  OF  NAMES. 


Bird,  Frank  W.,  ii.  521. 
Birney,  James  G.,  i.  22,  25, 

Black,  Jeremiah  S.,  i.  223, 
229-233,  235,  230,  241,  603- 
005;  ii.  (50,  365,  438,  530,  585. 

Blackburn,  J.  C.  S.,  ii.  550, 
589. 

Blaine,  James  G.,  i.  502;  ii. 
194-196,  205,  200,  250-258, 
202,  424,  431,  508,  533,  549, 
554,  555,  569-571,  588,  597, 
000,  007,  032,  054,  665,  600. 

Blair,  Austin,  i.  307,  517;  ii. 
288. 

Blair,  Francis  P.,  i.  127,  167, 
542. 

Blair,  Francis  P.,  jun.,  i.  107, 
285,  280,  324,  331,  372;  ii.  30, 
397,  403-400,  507,  517,  524. 

Blair,  Henry  W.,  ii.  551,  640, 
655. 

Blair,  Montgomery,  i.  167, 
284,  285,  286,  530;  ii.  61,  220, 
397,  528,  585. 

Bland,  Richard  P.,  ii.  542, 
603,  005,  607. 

Bland,  Tlieodorick,  i.  183. 

Blount,  William,  ii.  381. 

Blow,  Henry  T.,  ii.  127. 

Bocock,  Thomas  S.,  ii.  397, 
529. 

Bogy,  Louis  V.,  ii.  603. 

Bonhani,  Milledge  L.,  i.  75. 

Booth,  John  Wilkes,  ii.  63. 

Booth,  Newton,  ii.  552,  609, 
654. 

Borden,  Rev.  Dr.,  ii.  11. 

Boreman,  Arthur  I.,  ii.  224, 
551. 

Borie,  Adolph  E.,  ii.  425, 427, 
539. 

Boteler,  Alexander  R.,  ii. 
212. 

Botts,  John  Minor,  i.  101, 
311;  ii.  225. 

Bouck,  William  C.,  i.  521. 

Boudiuot,  Elias,  i.  183. 

Boutelle,  Charles  A.,  ii.  569. 

Boutwell,  George  S.,  i.  73, 
164,  439,  502,  507,  537;  ii. 
127,  215,  224,  255,  258,  295, 
322,  344-347,  359,  361,  362, 
370,  371,  414,  415,  426,  538, 
539,  544,  559,  603,  660. 

Bowen,  Francis,  ii.  603. 

Boyer,  Benjamin  M.,  ii.  207, 
235,  2J36,  262. 

Bradbury,  James  W.,  i.  89. 

Bradley,  Joseph  P.,  ii.  585, 
588,  656. 

Bragg,  Braxton,  i.  449,  454. 

Bramlette, Thomas  E. ,  ii.  229. 

Branch,  Lawrence  O'B.,  i. 
278,  280. 

Brandegee,  Augustus,  ii.  252. 

Brandon,  W.  L.,  ii.  151. 

Breckinridge,  John  C.,  i.  119, 
125,  120,  147,  102,  103,  170, 
171,  207,  215,  216,  245,  205, 
281,  287,  289,  309-311,  314, 
322,  323,  331,  340,  341,  344- 
347, 373, 387, 502;  ii.  290, 291, 
311,  411,  679. 


Breckinridge,  Robert  J.,  1. 

517,518;  ii.  224. 
Briggs,  James  F.,  ii.  601. 
Bright,  Jesse  D.,  i.  108,  315, 

502. 
Bristow,    Benjamin    H.,    ii. 

539,  503,  508,  570,  571. 
Bristow,  Francis  M.,  i.  278. 
Broderick,  David  C.,  i.  141, 

142. 

Brodhead,  James  O.,  ii.  403. 
Brooks,  James,  i.  480,  481;  ii. 

Ill,  221,  291,  292,  343,  350, 

430. 
Brooks,   Preston  S.,    i.   129, 

318. 
Broomall,  John  M.,  i.  510;  ii. 

119,  120,  198. 

Brown,  Aaron  V.,  i.  223,235. 
Brown,   B.  Gratz,  i.  502;  ii. 

287,  517,  523,  530,  647. 
Brown,  John,  i.  155,  156,  329, 

606. 

Brown,  John  C  ,  ii.  596. 
Brown,  Joseph  E.,  ii.  212. 
Brown,  William  G.,  i.  463. 
Browne,  Thomas  M.,  ii.  535, 

601. 
Browning,  Orville  H.,  i.  168, 

341,  375,  388, 443;  ii.  219, 220, 

230. 
Brownlow,  William    G.,  ii. 

51,  52,  79,  225,  442,  443,  473, 

551. 
Bruce,  Blanche  K.,  ii.  515, 

660. 
Bryant,  William  Cullen,  ii. 

16,  525,  531,  532. 
Buchanan,  James,  i.  27,  47, 

54,  56-59,   79,   99,  125,    126, 

128-130,    132,    133,  139,  147, 

149,  151,   180,    191-195,  205, 

207,  222-229,    231-241,   243, 

253,  250,  259,  270,  274,  275, 

277,  280,  283,  284,  280,  287, 

290,  292,  295,  297,  309,  315, 

323,  401,  502,  505-567,  603; 

ii.  110, 125, 177,  308,  309,  456, 

461,  4(52,  504,  631,  640-642, 

008,  073. 

Buck,  Alfred  E.,  ii.  434. 
Buckalew,    Charles    R.,    i. 

503;   ii.   258,   374,  375,  410, 

440. 
Buckingham,  William  A.,  i. 

305;  ii.  440,  551.     - 
Buckley,  Charles  W.,  ii.434. 
Buckner,  Aylett  H.,  ii.  542. 
Buckner,  S.  B.,  i.  350. 
Buell,D.C.,i.361,454;ii.29. 
Bullett,  Cuthbert,  ii.  36. 
Bullock,   Alexander  H.,  ii. 

224. 

Burchard,  Horatio  C.,  ii.  433. 
Burdette,  Samuel  S.,  ii.  433. 
Burke,  Edanus,  i.  184. 
Burke,  Edmund,  i.  107,  173, 

185;  ii.  382,  383. 
Burke,   Edmund  (N.H.),    i. 

221. 
Burlingame,  Anson,  i.  266; 

ii.  651. 
Burnett,   Henry  C.,  i.   310, 

344. 


Burnside,  Ambrose  E.,  i.  337, 
357,  360,  448-450,  452,  453, 
489,  490;  ii.  29,  520,  552. 

Burr,  Aaron,  i.  141;  ii.  12. 

Burrows,  Julius  C.,  ii.  542. 

Burton,  William,  i.  304. 

Butler,  Andrew  P.,  i.  90,  91. 

Butler,  Benjamin  F.  (Mass.), 
i.  100,  162,  314,  359,  3(58, 
369,  522,  528;  ii.  30,  231,  232, 
289,  290,  3:55,  337,  358,  301, 
3(55-367,  3(59,  372,  380,  449, 
450,  453,  454,  478,  513,  514, 
556,  589,  007,  009. 

Butler,  Benjamin  F.  (N.Y.), 
i.  79. 

Butler,  M.  C.,  ii.  212,  600,  009. 

Butler,  Roderick  R.,  ii.  512. 

Butler,  William  O.,  i.  30,  74, 
75,  80. 

Bynuru,  Jesse  A.,  i.  70. 

Cadwalader,  George,  i.  75. 

Cadwalader,  Lambert,  i.  183. 

Cake,  Henry  L.,  ii.  288. 

Calhoun,  John  C.,  i.  13,  27- 
34,  38,  39.  43,  50,  54,  55,  64, 
70,  89,  91,  92,  97,  115,  127, 
152,  189-192,  199,  200,  245, 
256,  204,  276,  522;  ii.  315, 
545,  640,  047. 

Calkins,  William  H.,  ii.  001. 

Cambreleng,  C.  C.,  i.  84. 

Cameron,  Angus,  i.  517;  ii. 
552,  007. 

Cameron,  J.  Donald,  ii.  390, 
539,  569,  599,  (557,  000,  001. 

Cameron,  Simon,  i.  07,  107, 
108,  195,  190,  284,  285,  321, 
324,  354,  355,  371,  378,  379, 
381,  517,  520;  ii.  13,  59,  224, 
242,  285,  374,  375,  390,  409, 
503,  588,  599. 

Campbell,  A.  W.,  ii.  224,  062. 

Campbell,  James,  ii.  221. 

Campbell,  James  H.,  i.  197. 

Campbell,  John  A.,  i.  293, 
542;  ii.  314-310,  585. 

Campbell,  Lewis  D.,  ii.  229, 
351. 

Canby,  E.  R.  S.,  ii.  298. 

Cannon,  Joseph  G.,  ii.  542. 

Caperton,  Allen  T.  ii.  212, 
551. 

Carey,  Henry  C.,  i.  204. 

Carlile,  John  S.,  i.  315,  373, 
375,  379,  425,  440,  476. 

Carlisle,  John  G.,ii.  397. 

Carrnichael,  R.  B.rii.  221. 

Carpenter,  Matthew  H.,  ii. 
437,  438,  464,  552,  585. 

Carr,  Joseph  B.,  ii.  31. 

Carroll,  Charles,  i.  183. 

Cartter,  David  K.,  i.  42. 

Casey,  Samuel  L.,  i.  440. 

Cass,  George  W.,  i.  529. 

Cass.  Lewis,  i.  27,  32-34,  53, 
57,'  58,  80-80,  89,  97,  99,  105, 
108,  123,  125,  130,  195,  205, 
207,  223,  229,  230,  232,  234, 
284,  319,  566,  567;  ii.  109, 
110. 

Casserley,  Eugene,  ii.  528. 

Cassidy,  Lewis,  ii.  528. 


INDEX  OF  NAMES. 


715 


Cassoday,  J.  B.,ii.  665. 

Castlereagh,  Lord,  i.  586. 

Cation,  John,  ii.  314-316. 

Cattell,  Alexander  G.,  ii.  160, 
161,  374,  386,  526,  (548. 

Cecil,  Lord  Robert,  ii.  478, 
479,481,482,635,636 

Cessna,  John,  ii.  433,  569. 

Chaff ee,  Jeioine  B.,  ii.  276, 
565,  5<i6,  569,  607,  640. 

Chamberlain,  Daniel  H.,  ii. 
570. 

Chamberlain,  Joshua  L.,  ii. 
31,  231. 

Chandler,  John,  i.  18. 

Chandler,  Lucius  H.,  ii.  225. 

Chandler,  William  E.,  ii.  333, 
386,  660. 

Chandler,  Zachariah,  i.  130, 
270,  318,  319,  341,  374,  375, 
378,  379,  443,  462,  477;  ii. 
185,  224,  243,  281,  282,  324, 
374,  409,  539,  551,  579,  580, 
587,  642. 

Chapin,  Chester  W.,  ii.  550. 

Chapman,  Henry,  i.  143. 

Chase,  Salmon  P.,  i.  42,  82, 
89,  97,  126, 137,  167, 168,  284, 
285,  287,  307,  320,  321,  324, 
401-407,  413,  414,  426-428, 
433,  434,  440,  470,  471,  474, 
480,  514,  515,  540,  542,  543; 
ii.  1,  59,  66,  146,  265,  3(53, 
369,  370,  374,  389,  391-395, 
400-403,  517,  523,  656. 

Chase,  Samuel,  i.  432;  ii.  381. 

Chestnut,  James,  jun.,  i.  219. 

Chittenden,  Simeon  B.,  ii. 
550. 

Choate,  Rufus,  i.  70,  101, 104, 
132,  328;  ii.  438. 

Christianey,  Isaac  P.,  ii.  551, 
585,  607,  642. 

Church,  Sanford  E.,  i.  84, 
524;  ii.  221,4,01,402,577. 

Churchill,  John  C.,  ii.  288, 
345. 

Cilley,  Jonathan,  i.  141. 

Claflin,  Horace  B.,  ii.  526. 

Claflin,  William,  ii.  386,  526, 
601. 

Clarendon,  Lord,  ii.  489,  490. 

Clark,  Daniel,  i.  268,  323,  339, 
476,  506;  ii.  156,  159,  210, 
287. 

Clarke,  Freeman,  ii.  323. 

Clarke,  George  Rogers,  i.  12. 

Clarke,  Horace  F.,  i.  143. 

Clarke,  John  B.,  ii.  212. 

Clarke,  Matthew  St.  Clair, 
ii.  543. 

Clarke,  William,  i.  12, 13. 

Clarkson,  J.  S.,ii.660. 

Clarkson,  William,  i.  173. 

Clay,  Cassius  M.,  ii.  521. 

Clay,  Clement  C.,  jun.,  i.  244, 
245. 

Clay,  Henry,  i.  13,  14,  16-19, 
25-28,  30,  34-39,  43,  50,  70- 
72,  75-79,  89-92,  94-97,  101, 
102,  105-108,  113,  119,  124, 
131,  152,  158,  159,  180,  189, 
191-193,  198,  200-202,  204, 
207,  284,  300,  309,  319,  322, 


323,  330,  331,  347,  502,524; 

ii.  58,  147,  291,  426,  440,  443, 

457,  532,  538,  545,  599,  633, 

647,  660. 

Clay,  Henry,  .jun.,  i.  75. 
Clayton,  John  M.,  i.  67,  70, 

87,  105,  117,  193. 
Clayton,  Powell,  ii.  508. 
Clayton,  Thomas,  i.  64,  105. 
Clemens,  Jere,  i.  75. 
Clements,  A.  J.,  i.  440. 
Clifford,  John  H.,  ii.  224. 
Clifford,   Nathan,   i.   32,  89; 

ii.  584,  585,  588. 
Clingman,  Thomas  L.,  i.  287, 

288. 
Clinton,  DeWitt  C.,  i.  19,  85, 

106. 

Clinton,  George,  i.  484. 
Clymer,  George,  i.  183. 
Clymer,  Hiester,  ii.  239,542. 
Co"bb,  Howell,  i.  54,  72,  88, 

223,  234,  240,  396,  400,  401, 

408  ;  ii.  14,  404. 
Coburn,  Abner,  i.  441. 
Coburn,  John,  ii.  288. 
Cochrane,  Alexander  G.,  ii. 

585. 
Cochrane,  John,  i.  453,  516  ; 

ii.  231,  232,521. 
Cockburn,  Sir  Alexander,  ii. 

498. 

Cockrell,  F.  M.,  ii.  212,  551. 
Coffroth,   Alexander    H.,  i. 

538. 

Coke,  Richard,  ii.  598. 
Cole,  Cornelius,  ii.  287,  374. 
Coles,  Edward,  ii.  269. 
Colfax,  Schuyler,  i.  197,  266, 

328,  463,   497,  498;   ii.   Ill, 

112,  179,  262,  292,  361,  390, 

391,  462,  527. 
Col  lamer,  Jacob,  i.  87,   167, 

168,  197,  266,  318,  321,  323, 

339,  375,  423,  425,  461,  477, 

481;  ii.  117. 

Collis,  Charles  H.  F.,  ii.  231. 
Colquitt,  Alfred  H.,  ii.  529. 
Conger,  Omar  D.,  i.  517  ;  ii. 

433,  660,  661. 
Conkling,    Frederick   A.,    i. 

421. 
Conkling,  Roscoe,  i.  266,  328, 

372,   378-381,   393,  394,  415, 

417,  418,  421,  465,  498,  502  ; 

ii.   118,   127,   195,   197,   242, 

286,  323,  374,  409,  518,  519, 

533,  5(58,  571,  583,  604,  654, 

657,  660,  662,  665,  669. 
Conness,   John,  i.  308,   502; 

ii.  374. 

Connor,  Selden,  ii.  31. 
Conover,  Simon  B.,   ii.  541, 

585. 
Con  way,   Martin  F.,   i.  332, 

462,  463,  465. 
Cook,  Burton  C.,  i.  168 ;  ii. 

122,  357. 

Cooper,  Edward,  ii.  593,  594. 
Cooper,  Henry,  ii.  585,  598, 

653. 

Cooper,  James,  i.  108. 
Corbett,  Henry  W.,  ii.  287, 

374. 


Cornell,  Alonzo  B.,  ii.  569. 
Corning,  Erastus,  i.  491  ;  ii. 

577. 

Corse,  John  M. ,  ii.  31. 
Corti,  Count  Louis,  ii.  500. 
Corwin,   Thomas,   i.  60,   89, 

96-98, 165,  259,  260,  263,  265, 

320. 

Couch,  Darius  N.,  ii.  223. 
Covode,   John,    i.    197,    327, 

379;  ii.  148,  355. 
Cowan,    Edgar,    i.  321,  375, 

425,  462  ;   ii.  126,  145,   147, 

156,  162,  167,  173,  174,  178, 

179,  220,  221,  285. 
Cowley,  Lord,  i.  574. 
Cox,   Jacob   D.,   ii.   31,  231, 

350,  424,  539,  589,  (501. 
Cox,  Samuel  S.,  i.  328,  497, 

537  ;    ii.  434,   43(5,  528,  555, 

588. 

Coyle,  John  F.,  ii.  591. 
Cragin,  Aaron  H.,    jr..   117, 

374,  598. 

Crapo,  William  W.,  K.  551. 
Crawford,  George  W.,  i.  87. 
Crawford,  Martin  J.,  i.  292, 

293. 

Crawford,  Samuel  W.,  ii.  31. 
Crawford,  William  H.,  i.  72, 

87,  256;  ii.  646. 
Creswell,  John  A.  J.,  i.  502  ; 

ii.   117,  224,   228,  386,  425, 

539,  660,  661. 
Crittenden,  John  J.,  i.  31, 53, 

64,  70,  76,  131,  142,  259,  267, 

268,  269,  277,  310,  311,  322, 

330,  331,  338,  341,  342,  370, 

372,  375,  380,  381,  447,  463". 
Crittenden,  T.  T.,  ii.  542. 
Cronin,  E.  A.,  ii.  586,  593. 
Crosswell,  Edwin,  ii.  532. 
Crowley,  Richard,  ii.  638. 
Cullen,  Elisha  D.,  i.  122. 
Cullom,   Shelby  M.,  ii.  122, 

526. 

Curry,  John,  i.  309. 
Curtin,  Andrew  G.,  i.   167, 

206,  207,   306,   307,  497  ;   ii. 

224,  225,  242,  390,  391,  523. 
Curtis,  Benjamin  R.,  i.  132, 

541  :  ii.  364-369,  378,  381. 
Curtis,   George   W.,    i.   273, 

274  ;  ii.  569,  570,  648. 
Curtis,  Samuel  R.,  i.  358. 
Cushing,  Caleb,  i.  27,  42,  75, 

100,   158,   159,  162;    ii.   (551, 

678. 
Custer,  George  A.,  ii.  30, 229. 

Dallas,  Alexander  J.,  i.  484. 
Dallas,  George  M.,  i.  27,  33, 

195. 
Dana,  Richard   H.,  jun.,  ii. 

569,  570,  631. 
Danford,  Lorenzo,  ii.  542. 
Darling,  William  A.,  ii   137. 
Davis,  David,  i.  165,  168,  540; 

ii.  523,  525,  584,  597,  598,  656. 
Davis,  Edmund  J.,   ii.  527, 

666. 
Davis,   Garrett,  i.   310,    369, 

373-375,  425,  477,  505,  506 ; 

ii.  374,  375,  414,  457,  557. 


716 


INDEX  OF  NAMES. 


Davis,  Henry  G.,  ii.  507,  528, 
606. 

Davis,  Henry  Winter,  i.  117, 
122,  259,  260,  285,  498,  499, 
510,  551;  ii.  43-45,  48,  225, 
425. 

Davis,  Horace,  ii.  601. 

Davis,  Jefferson,  i.  89,  96, 97, 
117,  119,  151,  159,  175,  221, 
233,  245,  246,  253,  255,  256, 
294-296,  302,  308,  313,  347, 
348,  357,  362,  542,  557,  570, 
575,  577  ;  ii.  14,  21,  26,  79, 
181,  227,  311,  315,  448,  485, 
525,  554,  555,  641. 

Davis,  J.  C.  B.,  ii.  496,  498, 
624. 

Davis,  John,  i.  64,  68,  71, 116, 
191;  ii.  601. 

Davis,  Noah,  ii.  432. 

Davis,  Thomas  T.,  ii.  257, 
260. 

Dawes,  Henry  L.,  i.  331,  354, 
463  ;  ii.  253,  347,  508,  545, 
552,  559,  605,  675. 

Dawson,  John  L.,  ii.  112. 

Dayton,  William  L.,  i.  127, 

167,  168,  590,  591. 
Decatur,  Stephen,  i.  434. 
Defrees,  John  D.,  ii.  521. 
Defrees,  Joseph  H.,  ii.  257. 
Delano,   Columbus,    ii.    121, 

539,  642. 
Delfosse,  Maurice,  ii.  624-633, 

636,  637. 

Deming,  Henry  C.,  ii.  118. 
Dennison,  William,    i.    307, 

517,  518;  ii.  61,  62,  218,  219, 

660. 

Denver,  J.  W.,  ii.  229. 
Depew,  Chauncey  M.,  i.  497  ; 

ii.  386. 

Derby,  Earl,  ii.  478,  485. 
Devens,  Charles,  i.  384,  444  ; 

ii.  596,  597. 

Dexter,  Samuel,  ii.  67. 
Dickinson,  Daniel   S.,  i.  32, 

108,  517,  520-522;  ii.  427. 
Dillingham,  Paul,  i.  442. 
Dingley,  Nelson,  jun.,ii.569, 

570. 

Disraeli,  ii.  440,  487,  635. 
Dix,  John  A.,  i.  79,  84,  235, 

236,  240,  285,  397,  401;   ii. 

220,  534,  535,  549. 
Dixon,  Archibald,  i.  113, 114. 
Dixori,  James,  i.  266,  323;  ii. 

126,  167,  170,  174,  178,  179, 

183,  220,  375,  413. 
Dockery,  Oliver  H.,  ii.  434. 
Dodge,  Augustus  C.,  i.  90. 
Dodge,  Grenville  M.,  ii.  31, 

287,  679. 

Dodge,  Henry,  i.  90. 
Dodge,  William  E.,  ii.  257, 

52(5,  679. 

Dom  Pedro,  ii.  612. 
Donelson,  Andrew  Jackson, 

i.  126. 
Donnelly,   Ignatius,  ii.   167, 

168,  196. 

Doolittle,  James  R.,  i.  321, 
339,  388,  477,  481;  ii.  121), 
149,  162,  167,  170,  174,  179, 


207,  210,  211,  220,  261,  374, 
375,  437,  529,  577. 

Dorsey,  Stephen  W.,  ii.  541. 

Dorsheimer,  William,  ii.  521, 
577,  578. 

Douglas,  Stephen  A.,  i.  54, 
89,  97,  99,  112,  114,  115,  118, 
123-125,  128,  133,  140-153, 
158,  160-164,  168,  170,  171, 
176,  180,  207,  215,  216,  245, 
271-273,  276,  277,  287-289, 
309,  310,  319,  323,  329,  330, 
341,  387,443,502;  ii.  110, 117, 
125,  186,  220,  237,  403,  411, 
438,  440,  441,  504,  506,  640. 

Douglass,  Frederick,  i.  22. 

Downey,  John  G.,  i.  308. 

Downs,  S.  W.,  i.  108. 

Drake,  Charles  D.,  ii.  287, 
369,  374,  507. 

Drake,  E.  F.,  ii.  665. 

Dromgoole,  George  C.,  i.  70. 

Dudley,  L.  Edwin,  ii.  231. 

Dufferin,  Lord,  ii.  626. 

Dumont,  Ebenezer,  ii.  122. 

Duncan,  Thomas,  ii.  231. 

Dunn,  George  G.,i.  197 ;  ii.  679. 

Dunn,  William  McKee,  i. 
197,329,381,498;  ii.  679. 

Dunnell,  Mark  H.,  ii.  511, 
585. 

Durant,  Thomas  J.,  ii.  36,  37, 
224,  225. 

Durham,  Milton  J.,  ii.  550. 

D  wight,  J.  W.,  ii.  608. 

Eads,  James  B.,  i.  553. 
Early,  Jubal  A.,  i.  524. 
Eaton,  John,  ii.  225. 
Eaton,   William  W.,  i.  524; 

ii.  397,551,587,607. 
Edmunds,  George  F.,  ii.  117, 

270,  271,  280,  352,  374,  375, 

450-453,  505,  583,  585,  604, 

607,  634,  665. 

Eggleston,  Benjamin,  ii.  121. 
Ela,  Jacob  H.,  ii.  288. 
Eldridge,  Charles  A.,  i.  502, 

510;    ii.  112,  175,   259,  345, 

409,  415,  436. 
Elgin,  Lord,  ii.  619. 
Eliot,  Thomas  D.,  i.  331;  ii. 

167,  197,  235,  237. 
Elkins,  Stephen  B.,  ii.  543. 
Elliott,  Robert  B.,  ii.  527. 
Ellis,  E.  John,  ii.  550. 
Ellis,  John  W.,  i.  304. 
Ellsworth,  Oliver,  i.  183;  ii. 

598. 

Emerson,  Ralph  W.,  i.  325. 
Emory,  William  H.,  ii.  378. 
English,  Charles  R.,  ii.  528. 
English,  James  E.,  i.  538;  ii. 

221,240,401,509. 
English,  William  H.,  i.  142; 

ii.  668. 

Ericsson,  John,  i.  359. 
Errett,  Russell,  ii.  602. 
Etheridge,  Emerson,  i.  117, 

325. 

Eustis,  James  B.,  ii.  397. 
Eustis,  William,  i.  19. 
Evans,  George,  i.  60,  70,  71, 

72,  193. 


Evans,  John,  ii.  276. 
Evarts,   William  M.,  i.  164, 

166;  ii.  364,  365, 368,  369, 372, 

384,  585,  5%,  635,  636,  678. 
Everett,  Edward,  i.  50,  116, 

163,  191,  311. 

Ewell,  Richard  S.,  i.  338. 
Ewing,  Charles,  ii.  32. 
Ewing,  Hugh,  ii.  32. 
Ewing,  Thomas,  i.  70, 87, 320; 

ii.  32,  362,  363. 
Ewing.  Thomas,  jun.,  ii.  32, 

229,  230,  577,  578,  602. 

Fairbanks,  Erastus,  i.  305. 
Fairchild,  Lucius,  ii.  224,  526. 
Fairfield,  John,  ii.  437. 
Farnsworth,  John  F.,  i.  510; 

ii  231   356 

Farquhar,  John  H.,  ii.  272. 
Farragut,  David  G.,  i.  359, 

361,  531;  ii.  36,238. 
Farwell,  Charles  B.,  ii.  510, 

511,  569. 
Farwell,  Nathan  A.,  ii.  59, 

679. 
Faulkner,  Charles  J.,  ii.  212, 

550. 
Fenton,  Reuben  E.,  i.  266, 

327,  478,  531;  ii.  119,  239, 

240,  242,   387,   389-391,  446, 

518,  519,  551,  608. 
Ferriss,  Orange,  ii.  288. 
Ferry,  Orris  S.,  ii.  287,  374, 

375. 
Ferry,  Thomas  W.,  ii.  123, 

583. 

Fessenden,  Francis,  ii.  32. 
Fessenden,  James  D.,  ii.  32. 
Fessenden,  Samuel,  ii.  32. 
Fessenden,  Samuel  (Conn.), 

ii.  569. 

Fessenden,  Samuel  C.,d.  331. 
Fessenden,   Thomas  A.  D., 

i.  331. 
Fessenden,  William  Pitt,  i. 

42,  98,  132, 142,  197,  2H6,  272, 

315-317,  320,  321,    323,   331, 

339,  341,  345,  374,  375,  421- 

423,  425,   427,   481,   543;   ii. 

32,  59,  90,  127,  147,  156-158, 

168,  198,  200-202,,  208,  209, 

215,  280,  324,  353,  374,  375, 

379,  381,  456,  457,  679. 
Field,  David  Dudley,-ii.  521, 

585. 

Field,  J.  W,  ii.  225. 
Field,  Stephen  J.,'i.  540;  ii. 

393,  584,  585,  588,  667,  668. 
Fillmore,  Millard,  i.  42,  73, 

77,  79,  95-97,  101-103,  105, 

108,  112,    126,  128,  129,  130, 
132,  276,320,499,541;  ii.  58, 

109,  308,  309,  396,  544,  631. 
Finck,  William  E.,   ii.  131, 

132,  252,  262. 
Finkelnburg,   Gustavus  A., 

ii.  224,  433,  679. 
Fish,  Hamilton,  i.  84,  197;  ii. 

426,  427,  428,  458,  465,  492, 

493,  495,  496,  504,  539,  601, 

624-631. 
Fishback,  William  M.,  ii.  40, 

41. 


INDEX  OF  NAMES. 


717 


Fisher,  George  P.,  i.  440. 
Fitch,  Thomas,  ii.  434. 
Fitzpatrick,  Benjamin,  i.  245. 
Fitzsimmons,  Thomas,  i.  183. 
Flagg,  Azariah  C.,  i.  79. 
Flanagan,  James  W.,  ii.  448, 

551. 
Flanders,   Benjamin    F.,  ii. 

36,  37,  39. 
Fletcher,  Thomas  C.,  ii.  224, 

38(5. 
Floyd,   Jolm  B.,  i.  223,  234, 

240,  280,  356, 357 ;  ii.  554,  555. 
Foot,   Solomon,   i.   197,   323, 

425,461,517;  ii.  117. 
Foote,  A.  H.,  i.  355,  360. 
Foote,  Henry  S.,  i.  89,  108. 
Ford,  Mr  Richard,  ii.  631. 
Forney,  John  W.,  ii.  181,  224, 

386,  535,  54:5. 

Forrest,  N.  B.,  ii.  230, 396, 397. 
Forsythe,  John,  i.  175,  292, 

293. 

Fort,  Greenbury  L.,  ii.  542. 
Foster,  Charles,  ii.  510,  660. 
Foster,  Dwight,  ii.  631. 
Foster,  LaFayette  S.,  i.  197, 

266,   288,   323,  425;  ii.  280, 

287. 
Fowler,  Joseph  S.,  ii.  52,  225, 

375. 
Fox,  Charles  James,  i.  107, 

312,  599. 

Fox,  E.  W.,  ii.  224. 
Franklin,  Benjamin,  i.   145, 

252;  ii.  199. 

Franklin,  Walter  S.,  ii.  543. 
Franklin,  William  B.,  i.  453. 
Fraser,  James  S.,  ii.  500. 
Frelinghuysen,  Frederick,  ii. 

161. 
Frelinghuysen,  Frederick 

T.,  ii.  16i,  374,  375,  572,  583, 

585. 
Frelinghuysen,  Theodore,  ii. 

161. 
Fre'mont,  John  C.,  i.  90,  127- 

130,  133,  167,  207,  358,  368, 

371,  448,  516,  530;  ii.  61,  43S. 
Frye,  William  P.,  ii.  510,  569, 

571,  588,  660,  665. 
Fulton,  C.  C.,  ii.  224. 

Gadsden,  James,  ii.  340. 
Gallatin,  Albert,  i.  72,  484; 

ii.  618,  619. 
Gallatin,  James,  i.  423,  480, 

481. 
Gait,  Sir  Alexander  T.,  ii. 

631,  633. 

Ganson,  John,  i.  538. 
Garfield,   James  A.,   i.  500, 

510,  537;  ii.  30,  206,  207,  224, 

254,  259,  323,  337,  347,  555, 

585,  588,  600,  638,  656,  660- 

666,  669,  670,  676. 
Garland,  A.  H.,  ii.  209,  393, 

397,  598. 
Garrison,  William  Lloyd,  i. 

22,  157,  173. 
Geary,  John  W.,  i.  138:  ii. 

224.  231,  239. 

Gentry,  Meredith  P.,  ii.  4. 
Gerry,  Elbridge,  i.  183. 


Geyer,  Henry  S.,  i.  197. 

Gibson,  John  Bannister,  i. 
230. 

Gibson,  Randall  L.,  ii.  212, 
397,  550,  588,  603. 

Giddings,  Joshua  R.,  i.  42, 
84,  165,  320,  328. 

Gilbert,  Abijah,  ii.  447,  551. 

Gilmer,  John  A.,  i.  278,  284. 

Gilpin,  William,  ii.  276. 

Gladstone,  W.  E.,  i.  602;  ii. 
440,  484,  489. 

Glover,  John  M.,  ii.  542. 

Goff,  Nathan,  ii.  224. 

Goff,  Nathan,  jim.,  ii.  569. 

Gooch,  Daniel  W.,  i.  379. 

Goode,  John,  jun.,  ii.  550. 

Goodwin,  Ichabod,  i.  305. 

Gordon,  Jolm  B.,  ii.  397,  529, 
541. 

Gorman,  Willis  A.,  ii.  229. 

Goschen,  ii.  608. 

Gottschalk,  Louis,  ii.  224. 

Goldsborough,  Louis  M.,  i. 
357,  360. 

Graham,  William  A.,  i.  103. 

Granger,  Gordon,  ii.  229. 

Grant,  Ulysses  S.,  i.  347,  355, 
356,  357,  360-363,  454,  489, 
494,  496,  510,  511,  516,  517, 
520,  523,  531,  544-546,  558; 
ii.8, 19,21,26,  29,  31,  32,  37, 
148-154,  238,  257,  265,  296, 
297,  299,  343-345,  348-352, 
354,  359,  362,  379,  383,  384, 
386,  389,  391,  393,  398,  399, 
404-408,  410-413,  417,  422- 
431,  436,  449,  451-455,  458- 
463,  4(>5,  466,  468,  470,  491- 
496,  502,  507,  518,  520,  525- 
527,  531,  533,  535,  537-539, 
541,  548,  552,  556-558,  561- 
565,  5(57,  568,  570,  581,  582, 
597,  599,  614,  642,  648,  652, 
656-658,  660,  661,  665-669. 

Granville,  Earl,  ii.  477,  495, 
502,  624-628,  630. 

Graves,  William  J.,  i.  141. 

Gray,  William  H.,  ii.  527. 

Greeley,  Horace,  i.  82,  86, 
104,  166,  167,  204;  ii.  131, 
224,  517-519,  521-526,  529- 
536,  549,  579,  641,  670. 

Green,  Ashbel,  ii.  585. 

Green,  James  Stephens,  i. 
270-273. 

Greene,  Nathaniel,  ii.  28. 

Gregg,  J.  Irvin,  ii.  235. 

Gregory,  William  H.,  ii.  478, 
482. 

Gresham,  WTalter  Q.,  ii.  31. 

Grey,  Earl  de,  ii.  496,  626. 

Grider,  Henry,  i.  67;  ii.  127. 

Grier,  Robert  C.,  i.  134, 196; 
ii.  656. 

Griffin,  Charles,  ii.  297. 

Grimes,  James  W.,i.266,  321, 
341,  378;  ii.  1'27,  280,  374, 
375,  379,  450,  453. 

Grinnell,  Moses  H.,  ii.  386. 

Griswold,  John  A.,  i.  497; 
ii.  253,  526. 

Groesbeck,  William  S.,  ii. 
365,  371,  530,  603,  608. 


Grosvenor,  William  M.,  ii. 

521,  590. 
G rover,    LaFayette,   ii.  586, 

593,  598. 
Grow,   Galusha    A.,   i.    266, 

271,   324,  498,  517;  ii.   389, 

677,  678. 

Gurney,  Russell,  ii.  500. 
Guthrie,  James,  i.  472,  524, 

529;    ii.   117,   167,   173,   178, 

212,  324. 
Gwin,  William  M.,  i.  90, 120, 

141,  266,  308,  315;  ii.  528. 

Hahn,  Michael,  ii.  36,  37,  39, 

77,  79. 
Hale,   Eugene,  ii.  386,    432, 

433,  457,  512,  539,  569,  58§, 

Hale]  John  P.,  i.  42,  89,  90, 

105,  109.  136,  320,  323,  339, 
341,  369;  481;  ii.  9,  117,389. 

Hale,  Robert  S.,  ii.  118,  220, 

500. 

Hall,  William  A.,  i.  446. 
Halleck,   Henry  W.,  i.  358, 

1563,   366,   391-393,  449,  450, 

452,  546;  ii.  428. 
Halsey,  George  A.,  ii.  288, 

569. 
Hamilton,  Alexander,  i.  20, 

106,  141,   180,  186-188,  211, 
212,  430-132,  434,  483;  ii.  55, 
199,  269,  440,  456. 

Hamilton,  Andrew  J.,  ii.  78, 

225,  226. 

Hamilton,  Morgan  C.,  ii.  448. 
Hamlin,  Hannibal,  i.  42,  67, 

89,   169,   170,   285,  520,  522, 

523;  ii.  32,  242,  437,  457,  588, 

633,  634,  654. 
Hamlin,  Charles,  ii.  32. 
Hamlin,  Cyrus,  ii.  32. 
Hammond,  James  H.,  i.  219, 

552,  553. 

Hampton,  Wade,  ii.  641. 
Hampton,    Wade,    jun.,    ii. 

397,  400,  401,  404,  640,  641. 
Hancock,   John   (Texas),  ii. 

511. 
Hancock,  Winfield  S.,  ii.  29, 

297,   299,    401-403,   428-430, 

552,  577,  578,  667,  (568,  670. 
Hannegan,  Edward  A.,  i.  53. 
Hardeman,  Thomas,  jun.,  ii. 

529. 
Harding,  Benjamin  F.,  i.  478; 

ii.  117. 
Harlan,   James,   i.   266,  321; 

ii.  61,  62,  117,  219,  287,  374, 

375. 
Harlan,  John  M.,  ii.  569,  570. 

596,  656. 

Harmer,  Alfred  C.,  ii.  511. 
Harriman,  Walter,  ii.  231. 
Harris,  Benjamin  G.,  i.  528, 

538. 

Harris,  Hamilton,  ii.  387. 
Harris,  Ira,  i.«339,  476;  ii.  32, 

33,  127,  224,  280,  28(>. 
Harris,  Ishain  G.,  i.  304;  ii. 

598. 

Harris,  John  S.,  ii.  447. 
Harris,  John  T.,  ii.  542. 


718 


INDEX  OF  NAMES. 


Harris,  William  H.,  ii.  32. 

Harrison,  Benjamin  H.,  ii. 
33,  580,  6GO. 

Harrison,  Carter  H.,  ii.  550. 

Harrison,  William  HM  i.  25, 
26,  30,  105,  152,  158,  192, 
205,  284,  330,  541;  ii  6,  55, 
57,  362,  457,  524,  647,  651. 

Hartranft,  John  F.,  ii.  31, 
231,  535,  568,  571. 

Harvey,  James  M.,  ii.  598. 

Haskell,  Dudley  C.,  ii.  601. 

Haskin,  John  B.,  i.  143. 

Hassaurek,  Frederick,  ii.  224. 

Hastings,  Warren,  ii.  382, 383. 

Haverrneyer,  Henry,  ii.  591, 
592. 

Hawkins,  A.  W.,  ii.  225. 

Hawley,  John  B.,  ii.  433. 

Hawley,  Joseph  R.,  ii.  31, 
240,  386,  387,  508,  509,  526, 
527,  564,  569,  570,  572,  596. 

Hayes,  Rutherford  B.,  i.  68; 
ii.  121,  122,  224,  440.  441, 
526,  527,  568,  571,  572,  579, 
580,  582-587,  589,  595-597, 
600,  603,  604,  608,  633,  614, 
638-640,  648,  649,  653,  655, 
G56. 

Hayne,  Robert  Y.,  i.  70,  90; 
ii.  446. 

Hazen,  William  B.,  ii.  30. 

Hazleton,  Gerry  W.,  ii.  511. 

Heintzelman,  Samuel  P.,  i. 
337. 

Hemphill,  John,  i.  287. 

Henderson,  D.  B.,  ii.  660, 661. 

Henderson,  John  B.,  i.  372, 

374,  375,  446,  475,  476,481, 
505;   ii.   202,   203,  257,  374, 

375,  379,  413,  526. 
Henderson,   Thomas  J.,  ii. 

551. 

Hendricks,  Thomas  A.,  i. 
502,  503,  506;  ii.  167,  178, 
185,  208-210,  212,  258,  332, 
374,  375,  392,  401,  402,  403, 
405,  413,  446,  535,  577-579, 

582,  586,  667,  668. 
Henry,  Gustavus  A.,  ii.  4. 
Herrick,  Anson,  i.  538. 
Hewitt,   Ahram    S.,   ii.  550, 

583,  584,  586,  588,  593,  608, 
655,  670. 

Hickman,  John,  i.  143,  326, 

420;  ii.  521. 

Hicks,  Thomas  H.,  i.  304. 
Higby,  William,  ii.  123,  336. 
Hill,   Benjamin   H.,  ii.  397, 

404,  550,  555,  597. 
Hill,  Joshua,  ii.  447,  541. 
Hill,  Nathaniel  P.,  ii.  640. 
Hilliard,  Henry  W.,  ii.  212. 
Hiscock,  Frank,  ii.  386,  569, 

589,  601. 

Hise,  Elijah,  ii.  260. 
Hoadly,  George,  ii.  521,  524, 

585,  667. 
Hoar,   E.   Rockwood,   i.  77; 

ii.   424,   425,    496,   538,  539, 

541,  544,  564,  569. 
Hoar,  George  F.,  ii.  435,  436, 

454,  564,  569,  583,  585,  597, 

654,  660;  661. 


Hoar,  Samuel,  ii.  435. 
Hobart,  Garrett  A.,  ii.  569. 
Hoffman,   John  T.,  ii.   239, 

240,  390,  528. 
Hogan,  John,  ii.  123. 
Hoge,  Daniel  H.,  ii.  225. 
Holcombe,  James  P.,  i.  302. 
Holden,  William  W.,  ii.  77. 
Holman,  William  S.,  i.  329, 

354,   403,   505,   506,  508;   ii. 

357,  436. 

Holmes,  John,  i.  16,  18. 
Holt,  Joseph,  i.  233,  235,  240, 

241,  280,  281,  285. 
Hood,  John  B.,  i.  544. 
Hooker,  Charles  E.,  ii.  550. 
Hooker,  Joseph  E.,   i.  453, 

489,  493-495;  ii.  17,  29,  32. 
Hooper,  Samuel,  i.  418,  471, 

480,481;  ii.  321. 
Hopkins,  George  W.,  i.  32. 
Hopping,  Enos  D.,  i.  75. 
Horr,  Roswell  G.,  ii.  639. 
Horton,  S.  Dana,  ii.  608. 
Horton,  Valentine  B.,  i.  328, 

416,  420,  421,  425. 
Houck,  Leonidas  C.,  ii.  639. 
Houston,  George  S.,  i.  260. 
Houston,  Samuel,  i.  26,  40, 

90,  124,  125. 

Howard,  Henry,  ii.  500. 
Howard,   Jacob  M.,   i.   266, 

375,  462,  477;   ii.   127,  173, 

207,  208,  210,  258,  296,  369, 

374,  375. 
Howard,   Oliver  O.,  i.   337; 

ii.  29,  164. 
Howard,  William  A.,  ii.  526, 

569. 

Howe,  James  H.,  ii.  570. 
Howe,  Samuel  G.,  ii.  460. 
Howe,   Timothy  O.,   i.   137, 

287,   321,   461;   ii.   209,  224, 

271,   324,   374,  375,  503-504, 

585. 

Hoyt,  Henry  M.,  ii.  569. 
Hubbard,  Chester  D.,  ii.  123. 
Hubbell,  Jay  A.,  ii.  542. 
Hughes,  Francis  W.,  ii.  221. 
Hughes,   John,   Archbishop, 

i  549. 

Hulburd,  Calvin  T  ,  ii.  321. 
Humphries,  West  W.,ii.  381. 
Hunt,  Theodore  G.,'i.  117. 
Hunt,  Ward,  ii.  656. 
Hunt,     Washington,    i.    67, 

524,  526. 
Hunter,  David,  i.  337, 371;  ii 

30. 

Hunter,  Morton  C.,  ii.  288. 
Hunter,  Robert  M.  T.,  i.  72, 

90,  266,  275-278,  315,  542;  ii. 

22. 

Huntington,  C.  P.,  i.  509. 
Hunton,  Eppa,  ii,  542,  583, 

585,  589. 

Hurd,  Frank  H.,  ii.  585,  639. 
Hurlbut,  Stephen  A.,  ii.  542, 

585. 

Hutchins,  Waldo,  ii.  521. 
Hutchins,  Wells  A.,  i.  538. 

Ingalls,  John  J.,  ii.  539, 540, 
606. 


Tngersoll,   Ebon    C.,  i.  506, 

538;  ii.  196,  357. 
Ingersoll,  Jared,  i.  432. 
Ingersoll,  Joseph  R.,  i.  67. 
Ingersoll,  Robert  G.,  ii.  569, 

570 

d'ltajuba,  Baron,  ii.  498. 
Iverson,  Alfred,  i.  247. 

Jackson,  Andrew,  i.  13,  28, 
29,31,34,36,38,  39,  59,  61, 
70,  79-81,  91,  105,  106,  115, 
124,  127,  135,  152,  170,  180, 
192,  201,  204,  230,  23S,  241, 

245,  319,  330,  482,  485,  486, 
522,540,541;  ii.  6,  28,  32,65, 
124,  125,  186,  187,  241,  268, 
307-309,  315,  379,  380,   422- 
426,  440,  443,  538,  573,  575, 
646,  647. 

Jackson,    Claiborne    F.,    i. 

304. 

Jackson,  James  S.,  i.  331. 
Jackson,    Moncivall,    i.    337, 

338,  364-368,  494. 
James,  A.  B.,  ii.  601. 

Jay,  John,  i.  252;  ii.  338,598. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  i.  4,  5,  7, 
8,  11,  12,  19-21,  39,  45,  66, 
105,  106,  108,  152,  180,  204, 
230,  255,  283,  431,  482,  484, 
547,  586;  ii.  66,  307,  315,  339, 
422,  440,  538,  575,  644,  645. 

Jenckes,  Thomas  A.,  ii.  133, 
196,  647. 

Jenks,  George  A.,  ii.  550. 

Jewell,  Marshall,  ii.  539,571, 
572,  666. 

Jewett,  Hugh  J.,  ii.  541. 

Johnson,  Andrew,  i.  54,  68, 
72,  278,  314,  339,  346,  379, 
446,  520-522,  541;  ii.  1-14, 
34,  35,  50-52,  54-71,  73-77, 
79-86,  89,  93,  105-109,  112, 
113,  115,  116,  124-127,  129, 
130,  132,  136,  137-139,  143- 
154,  162-166,  168-171,  175- 
179,  181-190,  192,  193,  204- 
206,  211-213,  216,  218-220, 
222,  223,  226,  227,  229,  230, 
232,  233,  236-239,.  241-243, 

246,  247,  249,  250,  253,  255, 
257,  259,  261-264,   267,   270, 
272,  273,  276,  277,  271),  280, 
282,  283,    292-296,   298-309, 
318,   319,  324,  331-333,  337, 

339,  341-352,   354-386,    388, 
389,  391,  396,  401,  422,  428, 
429,  431,  436,   449-455,   462, 
473,  507,  551-553,  565,  597, 
614,  656. 

Johnson,  Bradley  T.,  ii.  529. 

Johnson,  Herschel  V.,  i.  162. 

Johnson,  James,  ii.  78. 

Johnson,  Reverdy,  i.  87,  135, 
136,  502;  ii.  127,  143,  174, 
208-210,  212,  221,  257,  258, 
281,  282,  374,  375,  379,  489, 
490,  492,  598. 

Johnson,  Waldo  P.,  i.  341. 

Johnson,  William  Cost,  i.  60. 

Johnston,  Albert  Sidney,  i. 
75,  235,  357,  361,  362. 

Johnston,  John  W.,  ii.  447. 


INDEX  OF  NAMES. 


719 


Johnston,  Joseph  E.,  i.  235, 
338,  348,  4!>7,  544,  558;  ii.  30, 

430,  641,  642. 
Johnston,  Josiah  Stoddard, 

i.  75. 
Johnston,  William  Preston, 

i.  362. 
Jones,  Charles  W.,  ii.  551, 

585. 

Jones,  Frank,  ii.  550. 
Jones,  James  C.,  i.  117. 
Jones,  John  P.,  ii.  540,  569, 

603,  606. 

Jones,  Samuel,  i.  558. 
Jones,  Thomas  L.,  ii.  550. 
Jorgensen,  Joseph,  ii.  639. 
Joy,  James  F.,  ii.  665. 
Joyce,  Charles  H.,  ii.  551. 
Juarez,  ii.  351,  625. 
Judd,  Norman  B.,  i.  165;  ii. 

287. 
Julian,   George  W.,  ii.   122, 

357,  361,  521,  524. 

Kasson,  John  A.,  i.  501,  537; 

ii.  255,  541,  585,  588. 
Keifer,  Joseph  W.,  ii.  601. 
Kelley,  William  D.,  i.  326, 

327;  ii.   133,  255,   347,   356, 

433,  564,  675. 

Kellogg,  Ensign  H.,  ii.  631. 
Kellogg,  Stephen  W.  ii.  433, 

571. 

Kellogg,  William,  i.  261. 
Kellogg,  William  Pitt,  i.  357; 

ii.  447,  569,  0(50. 
Kelly,  James  K.,  ii.  593. 
Kelly,  John,  ii.  528,  577. 
Kelso,  John  R.,  ii.  342. 
Kennedy,   Anthony,  i.   268, 

277,425;  ii.  117. 
Kernan,   Francis,  i.  502;  ii. 

997,534,551,577,578,606. 
Kerr,  Michael  C.,  ii.  122,  359, 

431,  43(5,  549,  566. 
Ketchaui,  John  H.,  ii.  119. 
Ketchum,  Morris,  i.  423. 
Ketchum,  Winthrop  W.,  ii. 

551. 

Key,  David  M.,  ii.  597. 
Killinger,  John  W.,  i.  327 
Kilpatrick,  Judson,  ii.  30. 
King,  Horatio,  i.  235. 
King,  Preston,  i.  42,  54,  67, 

85,  165,  319,  425,  502,  518. 

519;  ii.  11,  186,  187. 
King,  Rufus  (Me.),  i.  183. 
King,  Rufus  (N.Y.),  i.  448. 
King,  Thomas  Starr,  i.  308. 
King,  William  R.,  i.  29,  89, 

100,  108,  3:30. 
Kirk  wood,  Samuel  J.,  i.  307: 

h.  117,  598. 

Knott,  J.  Proctor,  ii.  583. 
Knox,  John  Jay,  i.  486. 
Koerner,  Gustavus,  1. 168;  ii. 

521 

Koontz,  William  H.,  ii.  526. 
Kuykendall,  Andrew  J.,  ii. 

257. 

Laflin,  Addison  H.,  ii.  288. 
Lamar,  L.  Q.  C.,   i.  243;  ii 
541,  546,  606,  609. 


Lander,  F.  W.,  i.  383. 
Landers,  Franklin,  ii.  655. 
Lane,  Amos,  ii.  186. 
Lane,   Henry  S.,  i.   167;   ii. 

185,  287,  386,  526. 
Lane,   James  H.,  i.  315;  ii. 

179,  185,  186. 
Lane,  Joseph,  i.  75,  162,  277, 

308. 
Lapham,    Elbridge    G.,    ii. 

Latham,  Milton    S.,  i.   277, 

309,  315,  379,  387. 
Laurens,  Henry,  i.  252. 
Lawrence,  Abbott,  i.  77. 
Lawrence,  Charles  B.,  ii.  596. 
Lawrence,  George  V.,  ii.  120. 
Lawrence,  Joseph,  ii.  120. 
Lawrence,  William,   ii.  121, 

19(5,  252,  323,  345,  347,  366, 

585. 
Lawrence,  William   Beach, 

ii.  221. 

Lazear,  Jesse,  i.  538. 
Leave tt,  Humphrey   H.,    i. 

490. 
Le  Blond,  Francis  C.,  i.  538; 

ii.  252,  262. 
Ledyard,  John,  i.  12. 
Lee,  Charles,  i.  432. 
Lee,  Fitz-Hugh,  ii.  529. 
Lee,  Richard  Henry,  i.  183. 
Lee,   Robert  E.,  i.  235,  302, 

303,  364-367,  439,    448-452, 
454,  493-496,   531,    544-546, 
557,  558,  606;  ii.  8,  21,  227, 
243,  430,  506,  541. 

Leigh,  Watkins,  i.  70. 

Le  Moyne,  Francis  J.,  i.  25; 
ii.  550. 

Le  Moyne,  John  V.,  ii.  550. 

Leopold  I.,  ii.  625. 

Leopold  II.,  ii.  625. 

Leteher,  John,  i.  304;  ii.  79. 

Lewis,  Barbour,  ii.  225. 

Lewis,  Charlton,  ii.  434. 

Lewis,  Dixon  H.,  i.  70. 

Lewis,  John  F.,  ii.  447,  527, 
551. 

Lewis,  Meriwether,  i.  12,  13. 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  i.  72,  117, 
122,  123,  127,  133,  137,  138, 
140,  141,  144-150,  152,  153, 
157,  160;  1(58-172,  174,  176, 
177,  180,  198,  206,  207,  215- 
220,  225,  238,  253,  254,  270, 
272-274,  276,  279-299,  301, 

304,  306-311,  313,   314,   319, 
321,  328,  330-337,   340,   343, 
351-353,  355,  35(5,   358,   362, 
364-3(57,   370-372,  376,    377, 
382,  387,  389,  390,  392,  393, 
394,  400,  401,  403,  405,  427, 
433,  435,  43(5,   438-448,   450, 
451,   453-457,   463,  467,  474, 
488-496,   503,   504,  507,  510, 
511,   514-517,   520,    523-526, 
528-536,   540-549,   552,    560, 
562-564,   566-572,   583,   595; 
ii.  1-3,  7-12,  15-18,  22,  31, 
35-56,  59-63,  68,  73-75,  77, 
79,  83, 108,  146, 182,  186,  206, 
216,  219-221,  227,   230,   240, 
264,  274-276,  280,  287,  305, 


308,  309,  314,  315,  356,  362, 
366-3(59,  371,  372,  379,  384, 
393,  398,  407.  421,  428,  439, 
440,  466,  478,  482,  511,  523, 
535,  540,  544,  567,  598,  640, 
647,  672,  673,  676,  677. 

Lincoln,  Levi,  ii.  224,  364. 

Livingston,  Robert  R.,  i.  4, 
6,  7,  10. 

Loan,  Benjamin  F.,  ii.  257, 
342. 

Lodge,  Henry  Cabot,  ii.  660. 

Logan,  John  A.,  i.  330,  357, 
497;  ii.  30,  231,  287,  35(5,  361, 
370,  386,  389,  453,  504,  506, 
526,  583,  597,  639,  640,  660. 

Long,  Alexander,  i.  526,  529. 

Longstreet,  James,  i.  338. 

Lord,  Scott,  ii.  550. 

Loring,  George  B.,  ii.  386, 
600. 

Lovejoy,  Elijah  P.,  i.  22,  329, 

Lovejoy,  Owen,  i.  22,  266, 
270,  285,  329,  341,  372,  380, 
381,416,417,421,441. 

Lowell,  James  Russell,  ii. 
569. 

Lundy,  Benjamin,  i.  22. 

Lunt," George,  i.  524. 

Lynch,  John,  ii.  457. 

Lynch,  John  R.  ii.  515,  526, 
527. 

Lynde,  William  Pitt,  ii.  550. 

Lyon,  Nathaniel,  i.  314. 

Lyons,  Lord,  i.  565,  568,  573, 
575,  577,  578,  580,  584,  587. 

Macdonald,  Sir  John,  ii.  496. 
Machen,  W.  B.,  ii  212. 
Macomb,  Alexander,  ii.  28. 
Macon,  Nathaniel,  i.  45, 115. 
Madison,  James,  i.  4,  19,  39, 

45,  57,  69,  92,  105,  106,  152, 

183,  184,  186,  283,  330,  4(55, 

484,  584;    ii.  55,   199,    268, 

269,  270,  307,  575,  645. 
Maginnis,  Martin,  ii.  543. 
Magoffin,  Beriah,  i.  304. 
Mallory,  Robert,  i.  310,  331, 

375,  381,  507. 

Mallory,  Stephen  R.,  i.  244. 
Maney,  George,  ii.  212. 
Mangum,  Willie    P.,    i.   90, 

108,  193. 
Marble,  Manton,  ii.  578,  586, 

589,  590,  591,  593. 
Marcy,  Daniel,  i.  538. 
Marcy,  William  L.,  i.  47,  58, 

75,  79,  80,  84,  99,  104,  123, 

194,   284,  521,  579;  ii.  108, 

110,  124,  619,  647. 
Marshall,  Humphrey,  i.  117, 

197. 

Marshall,  James  W.,  ii.  539. 
Marshall,  John,  i.  135,  542; 

ii.  269,  270,  281. 
Marshall,  Samuel  S.,  ii.  292, 

345,  436. 

Marshall,  Thomas  F.,  i.  70. 
Marston,  Gilman,  i.  266,  331; 

ii.  117. 

Martin,  John  A.,  ii.  660. 
Marvin,  William  E.,  ii.  78. 
Mason,  George,  i.  45. 


720 


INDEX  OF  NAMES. 


Mason,  James  M.,  i.  90,  91, 

108,  119,  155,  241,  288,  303, 

311,  315,  351,  406,  554,  580, 

582,585;  ii.  14,506. 
Matthews,  James  N.,  ii.  527, 

569. 
Matthews,   Stanley,   ii.   224, 

521,  524,  542,  585,  599,  601, 

605,  640,  654,  656. 
Maxey,  Samuel  B.,  ii.  551. 
Maynard,  Horace,  i.  117,  440, 

463;  ii.  434,  435,  527,  666. 
McAllister,  Archibald,  i.  538. 
McCall,  George  A.,    i.  379, 

380. 
McCarthy,    Dennis,   ii.   287, 

336. 

McCauley,  Daniel,  ii.  231. 
McClellan,    George    B.,    i. 

314,  350,  363-368,  379,   382, 

384-386,   388,    391-394,  439, 

447-451,  453,  454,  496,  510, 

525,  527-532;  ii.  29,  32,  240, 

428,  (MO. 

McClelland,  Robert,  i.  67. 
McClernand,    John    A.,    ii. 

229,  441,  577,  578. 
McClure,  Alexander  K.,  i. 

167;  ii.  386,521. 
McConnell,  J.  R.,  i.  308,  309. 
McCook,    Alexander  McD., 

ii.  31. 
McCook,  Anson  G.,  ii.    31, 

601. 

McCook,  Daniel,  ii.  31. 
McCook,  Edward  M.,  ii.  31. 
McCook,  Edwin  S.,  ii.  31. 
McCook,  Robert  L.,  ii.  31. 
McCormick,  Richard  C.,  ii. 

543. 
McCrary,  George  W.,  i.  517; 

ii.  433,  583,  585,  596. 
McCreery,    Thomas    C.,    ii. 

375,447,641. 
McCulloch,  Hugh,  i.  478,  479; 

ii.  59,  62,  320-323,  328-333. 
McDill,  James  W.,  ii.  542. 

i-i^    Alexander,    ii. 


McDonald,  Joseph  E.,  i.  524; 

ii.  397,  551,  585,  588,  606. 
McDougal,  James  A.,  i.  136, 

315,  346,  378,  387  389,  425, 

506;  ii.  178,  212. 
McDowell,  Irvin,  i.  337,  348, 

364-368,448;  ii.  29. 
McDowell,  James  F.,  i.  538. 
McKay,  James  J.,  i.  66. 
McKee,  George  C.,  ii.  434. 
McKee,  William  R.,  i.  75. 
McKennan,  Thomas  M.  T., 

i.  60,  193. 

McKenzie,  Lewis,  ii.  225. 
McKenzie,  Ranald  S.,  ii.  30. 
McKinley,  William,  jun.,  ii. 

602. 

McKinney,  John  P.,  i.  538. 
McLane,  Robert  M.,  ii.  577. 
McLaws,  Lafayette,  ii.  212. 
McLean,  John,  i.  126,  132, 

167,  168,541,  ii.  338,339. 
McLean,  Washington,  ii.  403. 
McMahon,  John  A.,  ii.  550, 

589. 


McManes,  James,  ii.  659. 
McMichael,  Morton,  ii.  526. 
McMillan,  Samuel  J.  R.,  ii. 

552. 
McPherson,  Edward,  i.  266, 

327;  ii.  543,  569. 
McPherson,  James  B.,  i.524; 

ii.  30. 
McPherson,  John  R.,  ii.  598, 

606. 

McRuer,  Donald  C.,  ii.  123. 
McVeagh,  Wayne,  ii.  596. 
Meade,  Edwin  R.,  ii.  653. 
Meade,  George  G.,  i.  495,  496, 

510;   ii.  19,  29,  32,  37,  298, 

428-430. 

Medill,  Joseph,  ii.  648. 
Meigs,    Montgomery   C.,   i. 

450;  ii.  30. 

Menifee,  Richard  H.,  i.  60. 
Mercur,  Ulysses,  ii.  120. 
Meredith,  William  M.,  i.  87. 
Merriam,  Clinton  L.,  ii.  561. 
Merrick,  Richard  T.,  ii.  585. 
Merrick,  William  D.,  i.  193. 
Merrimon,  Augustus   S.,  ii. 

541. 

Middleton,  George,  i.  538. 
Miles,  D.  S.,  i.  337. 
Miles,  Nelson  A.,  ii.  31. 
Miller,  George  L.,  ii.  593; 
Miller,  Samuel  F.,  i.  540;  ii. 

584,  585,  588. 
Miller,  Stephen,  i.  36. 
Miller,  Warner,  ii.  638. 
Milliken,  Seth  L.,  ii.  569. 
Millson,  John  S.,  i.  115,  263. 
Milroy,  Robert  H.,  i.  495. 
Mitchell,  Alexander,  ii.  510, 

511. 
Mitchell,  John   H.,  ii.  541, 

585,  654. 

Mitchell,  John  I.,  ii.  602. 
Monroe,  James,  i.  4-7,  10,  17, 

19,  28,  39,  57,  69,  91,  92,  105, 

110,   197,   283;  ii.   307,  339, 

424,  535,  645,  646. 
Monroe,    James    (Ohio),    ii. 

511. 

Moore,  Laban  T.,  i.  278. 
Moorhead,  James  K.,  i.  266, 

327. 
Morgan,   Edwin    D.,   i.  306, 

502,  517;  ii.  11,  170,  224,  242, 

280,  324,  375,  409,  446. 
Morgan,  George  W.,  i.  528; 

ii.  397,  436,  508. 
Morgan,  John  T.,  ii.  212,  605. 
Morrell,  Daniel  J.,  ii.  433. 
Morrill,  Anson  P.,  i.  331. 
Morrill,  Justin  S.,  i.  197,  260, 

275-278,  331,  400,   418,  421, 

425;   ii.   127,  286,  288,  321, 

323,  326,  374,  375,  409,  604, 
605.  607,  675. 

Morrill,  Lot  M.,  i.  266,  320, 

324,  369;   ii.   158,   374,  375, 
456,  539,  597. 

Morris,  Daniel,  i.  506. 
Morris,  Gouverneur,  i.  4. 
Morris,  Robert,  i.  483. 
Morrison,  William  R.,  i.  357, 

502,  510;   ii.  397,   541,  589, 

667,  668. 


Morse,  Alexander  P.,  ii.  585. 
Morton,  Marcus,  i.  32. 
Morton,  Levi  P.,  ii.  494,  495, 

638. 
Morton,  Oliver  P.,  i.  167,  307; 

ii.  224,  243,  287,  375,  409,  416, 

450,  460,  526,  551,  5<i7,  568, 

570,   571,  583-585,  588,  599, 

600,  653. 
Motley,    John    Lothrop,    ii. 

492. 
Mower,  Joseph  A.,  ii.  235, 

297. 
Muhlenberg,  Frederic  A.,  i. 

183. 

Muhlenberg,  Peter,  i.  183. 
Murphy,  Henry  C.,  ii.  397. 
Murphy,  Isaac,  ii.  40,  79. 
Myers,  Leonard,  ii.  336. 

Napoleon  I.,  i.  3,  7,  9, 10,  13, 

251,  412,  428,  496,  550,  551; 

ii.  17,  28,  68,  424. 
Napoleon,  Louis,  i.  590,  596, 

598;  ii.  484. 

Nasby,  Petroleum  V.,  ii.  238. 
Negley,  James  S.,  ii.  31,  231, 

433. 

Nelson,  Homer  A.,  i.  538. 
Nelson,  Lord,  i.  236,  321;  ii. 

679. 
Nelson,   Samuel,  i.   134;    ii. 

496,  (356. 
Nelson,  Thomas   A.    R.,    i. 

278;  ii.  365,  370. 
Nesmith,  James  W.,  i.  315, 

478;  ii.  170. 

Newberry,  John  S.,  ii.  639. 
Newcomb,    Carman   A.,   ii. 

289. 

Newell,  William  A.,  i.  517. 
Newton,  John,  i.  453. 
Niblack,  William  E.,  ii.  112, 

122,  133,  260,  436,  455. 
Nicholls,  Francis  T.,  ii.  596. 
Nicholson,  A.  O.  P.,  i.  266. 
Niles,  John  M.,  i.  42,  285. 
Noell,  John  W.,  i.  440,  446. 
Northcote,  Sir  Stafford,    ii. 

476. 

Norton,  Elijah  H.,  i.  446. 
Norton,   Daniel    S.,   ii.   127, 

167,  170,  174,  179,  375. 
Norwood,    Thomas    M.,    ii. 

447. 

Nott,  Eliphalet,  ii.  431. 
Nourse,  Amos,  i:  197. 
Noyes,   Edward  F.,  ii.  549, 

569,  571. 
Nye,  James  W.,  ii.  375,  514. 

O'Connor,   Charles,   ii.    534, 

585. 

Odell,  Moses  F.,  i.  379,  497. 
Oglesby,  Richard   J.,  i.  168, 

357;  ii.  9,  357,  526,  540,  541, 

639. 

Olden,  Charles,  i.  306. 
Olin,  Abraham  B.,  i.  327, 498. 
Ord,  E.  O.  C.,  ii.  297,  298. 
Orr,  James  L.,  ii.  212,  223, 

526. 

Orth,  Godlove  S.,  ii   122. 
Orton,  William,  ii.  526. 


INDEX  OF  NAMES. 


721 


Osborn,  Thomas  W.,  ii.  447. 
Otis,  Harrison  Gray,  i.  19. 
Overton,  Edward,  ii.  602. 
Owsley,  William,  i.  36. 

Packard,  S.  B.,  ii.  569,  596. 
Packer,  Asa,  ii.  221,  401. 
Packer,  John  B.,  ii.  433. 
Packer,  William  F.,  i.  205. 
Page,  Horace  F.,  ii.  542. 
Paine,  Halbert  E.,  ii.  123. 
Palmer,  F.  W.,  ii.  433. 
Palmer,  Henry  M.,  ii.  398. 
Palmer,  John  M.,  ii.  231. 
Palmer,  8ir  Round  ell,  ii.  678. 
Palmerston,  Lord,  i.  598-600; 

ii.  477,  480,  483,  485. 
Parke,  John  G.,  ii.  30. 
Parker,    Cortlandt,    ii.    386, 

626. 
Parker,  Henry  Melville,   i. 

389. 

Parker,  Isaac  C.,  ii.  511. 
Parker,  Joel,  i.  495;  ii.  221, 

401,  578. 

Parsons,  Lewis  E.,  ii.  78, 249. 
Parsons,  Richard  C.,  ii.  542. 
Paschal,  George  W.,  ii.  225. 
Patrick,  J.  N.  H.,  ii.  593. 
Patterson,  David  T.,  ii.  52, 

375. 

Patterson,  George  W.,  ii.  601. 
Patterson,  James  W.,  ii.  287, 

374,  375. 

Patterson,  John  J.,  ii.  541. 
Patterson,  Robert,  i.  314,  348. 
Payne,  Henry  B.,  i.  162;  ii. 

528,  583,  585,  588,  667,  668. 
Pearce,  James  Alfred,  i.  117, 

425,  502. 

Peck,  James,  ii.  381. 
Peel,  8ir  Robert,  i.  419;  ii.  502. 
Pelton,  William  T.,  ii.  591- 

594. 

Pemberton,  J.  C.,  i.  489,  496. 
Pendleton,  George  H.,  i.  328, 

413,  492,  507,  524,  529,  537; 

ii.  391,  392,  394,   395,  397, 

399,  401-403,  517,  640. 
Pennington,  William,  i.  242. 
Perry,  Benjamin  F.,  ii.  78. 
Peters,  John  A.,  ii.  290,  335, 

457. 

Pettit,  John,  ii.  441. 
Peyton,  Baillie,  i.  301 ;  ii.  679. 
Phelps,  Edward  J.,  ii.  221. 
Phelps,  John  S.,  i.  427. 
Phelps,  Samuel  S.,  i.  108. 
Phelps,  William  Walter,  ii. 

542,  660. 
Phillips,  Wendell,  i.  22,  157, 

273;  ii.  69,  181. 
Phillips,  William  A.,  ii.  542, 

601,  607. 
Pickens,  Francis  W.,  i.  219, 

232,  296. 

Pickering,  John,  ii.  381. 
Pierce,   Franklin,  i.   75,   89, 

90,   99,   100,   104,   105,    109, 

110,  112,  117,  122,  123,  125, 

130,  132,  133,  138,  159,  196, 

284;  ii.   108,   110,  117,   149, 

308,  309,  315,  324,  424,  462, 

535,  538,  545,  673. 

VOL.  II. 


Pierce,  Henry  L.,  ii.  551. 
Pierpont,  Francis  H.,  i.  315, 

458,  464;  ii.  79. 
Pierrepont,  Edwards,  ii.  539, 

660,  664. 
Pike,   Frederick  A.,  i.   331, 

419,  420;  ii.  197,  322. 
Pile,  William  A.,  ii.  289. 
Pillow,  Gideon  J.,  i.  75,  355- 

357. 

Pinckney,  Henry  L.,  i.  70. 
Pinkney,  William,  i.  318;  ii. 

598. 

Piper,  William  A.,  ii.  653. 
Pixley,  F.  M.,  ii.  665. 
Platt,  Orville  H.,  ii.  640. 
Platt,    Thomas    C.,    ii.  542, 

569. 
Plumb,  Preston  B.,  ii.  598, 

660. 
Poland,  Luke  P.,  ii.  117,  158, 

159. 
Polk,  James  K.,  i.  24,  32-41, 

44,  47,  50,  51,  53,  57-61,  63- 

66,  72,  78-81,   88,  101,  104, 

105,  127,   159,   192-196,  270, 

284,  331,  360,  521;  ii.  6,  60, 

125,  308,  501. 
Polk,  Leonidas,  i.  347. 
Polk,    Trusten,  i.    339,   341, 

374. 

Pollock,  James,  i.  67,  205. 
Porneroy,  Samuel  C.,  i.  315, 

476,  515;  ii.  374,  375. 
Pomeroy,    Theodore   M.,   i. 

327,  421,  425;  ii.  569. 
Pool,  John,  ii.  447,  541. 
Pope,  John,  i.  448,  449,  451; 

ii.  29,  297,  298. 
Porter,  Albert  G.,  i.  329,  421, 

498. 

Porter,  Andrew,  i.  385. 
Porter,  David,  i.  4%. 
Porter,  David  D.,  i.  361. 
Porter,  David  R.,  ii.  221. 
Porter,  Fitz-John,  i.  337. 
Potter,    Alonzo,    Bishop,  ii. 

431. 
Potter,  Clarkson  N.,  ii.  431, 

432,  436,  528,  588-590,  593. 
Potter,  John  F.,  i.  332. 
Potter,  Robert  B.,  i.  490;  ii. 

31. 

Potts,  Frederick,  ii.  569. 
Powell,  Lazarus   W.,  i.  259, 

341,  346,  425,  462,  465,  476, 

506,  524,  5'J9;  ii.  117. 
Pratt,  Daniel  D.,  ii.  446,  551. 
Prentiss,  Sergeant  S.,  i.  60. 
Preston,    William,    ii.    397, 

404. 
Preston,  William  Ballard,  i. 

87,  302. 
Price,  Hiram,  i.  501;  ii.  322, 

336,  601. 
Price,    Sterling,    i.   75,    357, 

358. 

Price,  Thomas  L.,  i.  446. 
Pry  or,  Roger  A.,  i.  295. 
Pugh,  George  E.,  i.  142,  150, 

321;  ii.  397. 

Pugh,  James  L.,  ii.  212. 
Puleston,  J.  Henry,  i.  269. 
Pulitzer,  Joseph,  ii.  521. 

46 


Quay,  Matthew  S.,  ii.  660. 
Quincy,  Josiah,  i.  14,  15,  264. 
Quincy,  S.  M.,  ii.  235. 
Quitman,  John  A.,  i.  75. 

Radford,  William,  i.  538. 
Rainey,  Joseph  H.,  ii.  513, 

olo. 
Ramsey,  Alexander,   i.    68, 

307,  502;  ii.  375,  552,  569. 
Randall,   Alexander  W.,   i. 

307;  ii.  219,  220,  238. 
Randall,   Samuel  J.,  i.  502, 

506,   510;   ii.   295,  436,  528, 

554,  555,  566,  577,  600,  638, 

667,  668. 

Randall,  William  H.,  ii.  257. 
Randolph,  Edmund,  i.  484. 
Randolph,  John,  ii.  289. 
Randolph,  Theodore  F.,  ii. 

528. 

Randolph,  Thomas  J.,  ii.  529. 
Ransom,  Matthew  W.,  ii.  212, 

506,  583. 

Rapier,  James  T.,  ii.  515. 
Raum,  Green  B.,  ii.  288. 
Rawlins,  John  A.,  ii.  31,  427, 

539. 
Raymond,  Henry  J.,  i.  517, 

519;    ii.   118,   131-140,    162, 

175,  207,  220,  221,  222,  223, 

254,  531. 

Reagan,  John  H.,  ii.  529, 550. 
Rector,  Henry  M.,  i.  304. 
Reed,  Thomas  B.,  ii.  589, 594, 

600. 

Reed,  William  B.,  ii.  651. 
Reeder,  Andrew  H.,  i.  122, 

138,  165. 
Revels,  Hiram  R.,  ii.  447-449, 

515. 

Reynolds,  John  F.,  ii.  29. 
Reynolds,  Joseph  J.,  ii.  30. 
Rhett,  R.  Barn  well,   i.  219; 

ii.  397. 
Rice,  Alexander  H.,  i.  331; 

ii.  526. 
Rice,  Henry  M.,  i.  277,  379, 

425,  462, 

Rice,  John  H.,  ii.  277. 
Rice,  William  W.,  ii.  600. 
Richardson,      William      A. 

(111.),   i.  329,  330,  362,  380, 

443;  ii.  117,  397. 
Richardson,     William      A. 

(Mass.),  ii.  539. 
Richmond,  Dean,  i.  84,  524; 

ii.  221,573. 
Riddle,  George  Read,  i.  506; 

ii.  159. 

Riley,  Bennett,  i.  88. 
Ritchie,  Thomas,  i.  127. 
Ritner,  Joseph,  i.  204,  205. 
Rives,  William  C.,  i.  70,  193. 
Roach,  John,  ii.  612,  613. 
Roberts,  Ellis  H.,  ii.  386, 509, 

510,  559,  562. 

Roberts,  Marshall  O.,  ii.  220. 
Robertson,  Thomas  J.,  ii.  447, 

512. 
Robertson,  William  H.,   ii. 

287,  288,  569,  659. 
Robeson,  George  M.,  ii.  427, 

428,  539,  638. 


722 


INDEX  OF  NAMES. 


Robinson,  George  D.,  ii.  600. 
Robinson,  Henry  C.,  ii.  660. 
Robinson,  James  W.,  ii.  542. 
Roebuck,  J.  A.,  ii.  479,  480, 

482,  484. 
Rogers,  A.  J.,  i.  538,  ii.  127, 

175,  342. 

Rollins,  Edward  A.,  ii.  333. 
Rollins,  Edward  H.,  i.  421; 

ii.  598. 
Rollins,  James  S.,  i.  331,  375, 

537,  538. 

Rose,  Sir  John,  ii.  494,  495. 
Rosecrans,  William  S.,  i.  454, 

510;  ii.  29. 
Roselius,  C.,  ii.  39. 
Ross,  Edmund  G.,  ii.  375. 
Ross,  James,  i.  4.  * 

Rothery,  ii.  b29. 
Rousseau,  Lovell  H.,  i.  522; 

ii.  167,  229. 

Ruger,  Thomas  H.,  ii.  581. 
Rush,  Richard,  i.  522;  ii.  618, 

619. 

Rusk,  Jeremiah,  ii.  511. 
Rusk,  Thomas  J.,  i.  40,  90. 
Russell,  Daniel  L.,  ii.  639. 
Russell,  Earl,  i.  568,  569,  574, 

575,  577,  578,  580,  581,  584, 

598,  599;  ii.  477,  481,  483, 

488,  497. 

Rutledge,  John,  ii.  597. 
Ryan,  Thomas  H.,  ii.  601. 

Sabin,  Dwight   M.,  ii.   569, 

660. 

Safford,  M.  J.,  ii.  224. 
Salisbury,  see  Cecil. 
Samuels,  Benjamin,  i.  162. 
Sanders,  Romulus  M.,  i.  32. 
Sargent,  Aaron  A.,  i.  387;  ii. 

539,  552,  585,  606,  609,  653, 

654. 
Saulsbury,    Willard,  i.  425, 

506;   ii.  144,  211,  212,  258, 

375. 

Saunders,  Alvin,  ii.  598. 
Sawyer,  Frederick  A.,  ii.  447. 
Sawyer,  Philetus,  ii.  123,  569, 

660. 

Sayler,  Milton,  ii.  542. 
Scales,  Alfred  M.,  ii.  212, 550. 
Schell,  Augustus,  ii.  397,  577. 
Schenck,  Robert  C.,  i.  67,  314, 

499, 510;  ii.  133, 198, 224,  231, 

256,  259,  330,  3.%,  347,  353, 

354,  409,  496,  556,  558. 
Schoneld,  John  M. ,  ii.  29, 297, 

298,  384,  425,  427. 
Schurz,  Carl,  ii.  148-152,  154, 

224,  386,  387,  438,  440,  450- 

452,  461,  504,  505,  517,  521, 

551,  563,  596. 
Sclopis,  Count  Frederic,  ii. 

498. 
Scofield,  Glenni  W.,  i.  502, 

537;  ii.  322,  526,  527. 
Scott,  John,  i.  16. 
Scott,  John  (Peun.),  ii.  446, 

447,  551. 
Scott,  Winfield,  i.  64,  74-76, 

101-106,  109,  116,  280,  350, 

382;  ii.  28,  29,  32,  58. 
Scudder,  Henry  J.,  ii.  542. 


Sebastian,  William  K.,  i. 266. 

Sedgwick,  Charles  B.,  i.  327, 
425,  498. 

Seelye,  Julius  H.,  ii.  551,  660. 

Segar,  Joseph  E.,  i.  465. 

Selden,  Henry  R.,  ii.  521. 

Sessions,  Walter  L.,  ii.  511. 

Settle,  Thomas,  ii.  526,  527, 
666. 

Sewall,  William  J.,  ii.  569, 
660. 

Seward,  Clarence  A.,  ii.  569. 

Seward,  Frederick  A.  ii.  63. 

Seward,  William  H.,  i.  42, 77, 
79,  82,  86,  89,  96-98,  102, 104, 
126,  142,  150,  157,  1(55-169, 
180,  197,  266,  271,  284,  285, 
293,  294,  296,  319,  320,  324, 
327,  514,  522,  531,  539,  542, 
548,  568,  573,  577,  579,  581- 
585,  587,  594,  595;  ii.  1,  11, 
55,  56,  58,  62-68,  70,  71,  73- 
76,  81-86,  93,  107-110,  115, 
131,  132,  146,  152,  162,  170, 
184,  186,  192,  238,  242,  265, 
267,  273,  309,  333,  334,  339, 
340,  351,  369,  389,  427,  445, 
478,  488,  489,  512,  533,  651, 
678. 

Seward,  William  H.,  jun.,  ii. 
32. 

Seymour,  Horatio,  i.  438, 442, 
443,  490,  491,  495,  497,  524, 
526,  527,  529,  532;  ii.  390, 
397-399,  403-412,  579. 

Seymour,  Thomas  H.,  i.  75, 
529. 

Shanks,  John  P.  C.,  ii.  409. 

Shannon,  Wilson,  i.  29,  122, 
138. 

Sharkey,  William  L.,  ii.  78, 
81. 

Sharpe,  George  H.,  ii.  661, 

Shaw,  Lemuel,  ii.  364. 

Sheffield,  William  P.,  i.  419. 

Sheldon,  Lionel  A.,  ii.  434. 

Shellabarger,  Samuel,  i.  328, 
354,  420,  498;  ii.  121,  134- 
136,  138,  197,  235,  237,  253, 
260,  336,  585. 

Shepherd,  Alexander  R.,  ii. 
548. 

Shepley,  George  F.,  ii.  36. 

Sheridan,  Philip  H.,  i.  531; 
ii.  29,  235,  265,  297-299,  428- 
430,  552. 

Sherman,  John,  i.  266,  287, 
321,  340,  362,  369,  400,  401, 
423-425,  427,  471,  475;  ii. 
209,  258,  324,  331,  353,  374, 
375,  426,  505,  533,  563,  585, 
588,  596,  599,  603,  610,  665, 
666. 

Sherman,  Roger,  i.  183;  ii. 
435. 

Sherman,  William  T.,  i.  337, 
454,  497,  511,  512,  531,  533, 
544,558;ii.  18, 19,  21,29,  32, 
265,  288,  351,  362,  378,  427- 
430,  433,  539,  581. 

Sherwood,  Lorenzo,  ii.  225. 

Shields,  James,  i.  75,  89. 

Shunk,  Francis  R.,  i.  195. 


Sickles,  Daniel  E.,  ii.  31,  297, 

298,  386,  387. 

Sigel,  Franz,  i.  448;  ii.  31. 
Silsbee,  Nathaniel,  i.  191. 
Simmons,  James  F.,  i.  323. 
Simpson,  Bishop,  ii.  17. 
Sinclair,  John  G.,  ii.  221. 
Singleton,  Otho  K.,  ii.  212, 

Slidell,  John,  i.  47,  233,  248, 

249,  253,  351,  406,  580,  582, 

585;  ii.  14,  181,  506. 
Sloan,  A.  Scott,  i.  332. 
Sloan,   Ithamar  C.,   ii.   196, 

322. 
Slocum,  Henry  W.,   ii.   30, 

432,  436,  528. 
Smith,  Adam,  i.  181. 
Smith,  A.  Herr,  ii.  542. 
Smith,  Caleb  B.,  i.  284,  285; 

ii.  61. 
Smith,   Charles   Emory,    ii. 

569,  570. 

Smith,  E.  Kirby,  i.  558. 
Smith,  Gerritt,  i.  22,  157;  ii. 

526. 

Smith,  H.  Boardman,  ii.  511. 
Smith,  Sidney,  i.  433,  434. 
Smith,  Truman,  i.  67. 
Smith,  William,  ii.  79. 
Smith,  William  F.,  i.  453;  ii. 

30. 
Smith,  Worthington  C.,  ii. 

Smithers,  N.  B.,  ii.  224. 
Snowden,  A.  London,  ii.  610. 
Somers,  George  W.,  ii.  225. 
Soule,  Pierre,  i.  90,  241. 
Southard,  Milton  I.,  ii.  542 
Spalding,  Rufus  P.,  ii.   133, 

194,  335,  356,  521. 
Sparks,  William  A.  J.,  ii.  550. 
Spaulding,    Elbridge    G.,  i. 

327,  411,  412,  414,  425-427, 

471,  478,  498. 
Speed,  James,  ii.  62,  219,  224- 

226,  526,  527,  569,  570. 
Speed,  Joshua,  ii.  62. 
Spencer,  George  E.,  ii.  447. 
Sprague,  Peleg,  i.  191. 
Sprague,  William,  i.  305, 502; 

ii.  375,  552,  563. 
Springer,  William  M.,  ii.  550, 

583,  589. 

Stsempfli,  Jacob,  ii.  498. 
Stanbery,  Henry,  ii;  219,  282, 

294,  298,  299,  363,  364,  373, 

384. 
Stanford,  Leland,  i.  308,  309, 

509. 

Stannard,  Edwin  O.,  ii.  542. 
Stanley,  Lord,  ii.  488, 489, 497. 
Stanton,  Edwin  M.,  i.  233, 

235,  240,  241,  285,  355,  364- 

3(58,  385,  387,   388,   390-394, 

450,  545,  562-564;  ii.  18,  59, 

60,  62,  66,  164,  265,  348-352, 

354,  355,  362,  363,  366,  367, 

369-372,  378,  379,  383,  384, 

422,  438. 

Stanton,  Frederick  P.,  i.  139. 
Starin,  John  H.,  ii.  601. 
Steadman,  James  B.,  ii.  31, 

229. 


INDEX  OF  NAMES. 


723 


Stebbins,  Henry  G.,  i.  497. 

Steele,  John  B.,  i.  538. 

Stenger,  William  S.,  ii.  589. 

Stephens,  Alexander  H.,  i. 
103,  104,  117,  119,  174,  175, 
221,  302,  542;  ii.  88,  89,  546, 
547. 

Stevens,  Aaron  F.,  ii.  288. 

Stevens,  Thaddeus,  i.  42,  98, 
165,  266,  270,  286,  325,  326, 
329,  341,  354,  381,  400,  403, 
414-416,  425,  427,  441,  456, 
464,  479,  499,  510,  517,  518, 
542;  ii.  79,  112,  113,  127, 
128-133,  135,  137,  138,  140, 
147,  181,  192,  193,  195,  198, 
203-20(5,  212,  213,  215,  250- 
252,  256,  257,  258,  264,  295, 
301,  321,  327,  336,  347,  356, 
359-361,  372,  380. 

Stevenson,  John  W.,  i.  137; 
ii.  530,  667. 

Stewart,  Alexander  T.,  ii. 
425,  426,  539. 

Stewart,  James  M.,  ii.225. 

Stewart,  William  M.,  ii.  257, 
374,  375,  413. 

Stockton,  John  P.,  ii.  117, 
155-161,  178,  179,  183,  221, 
447,  528. 

Stockton,  Richard,  ii.  155. 

Stockton,  Richard,  jun.,  ii. 
155. 

Stockton,  Robert  F.,  ii.  J55. 

Stoeckl,  Baron,  ii.  333. 

Stokes,  William  B.,  i.  278. 

Stone,  Charles  P.,  i.  380-395, 
563. 

Storrs,  Emory  A.,  ii.  386, 660. 

Stoughton,  E.  W.,  ii.  585. 

Strong,  William,  ii.  584,  585, 
588,  656. 

Stuart,  Alexander  H.  H.,  i. 
311. 

Stuart,  Charles  E.,  i.  142. 

Stuart,  J.  E.  B.,  i.  338. 

Sturgis,  Samuel  D.,  i.  453. 

Sunnier,  Charles,  i.  73,  84, 
129,  135-137,  142,  197,  270, 
271,  317,  318,  320,  323,  341, 
345,  369,  374,  388,  389,  424, 
425,  440,  441,  461,  462,  585, 
586;  ii.  40,  41,  113,  114,  117, 
140,  143-145,  147,  149,  152, 
158,  159,  168,  181,  185,  198- 
202,  224,  296,  374,  375,  389, 
409,  426,  456,  461-463,  491, 
493,  503-506,  513,  514,  518, 
533,  544-546,  552. 

Swayne,  Noah,  i.  540;  ii.  656. 

Sweat,  L.  D.  M.,i.  441. 

Swett,  Leonard,  ii.  521. 

Swift,  John  F.,  ii.  655. 

Swope,  Samuel  F.,  i.  197. 

Sykes,  George,  i.  385. 

Taft,  Alphonso,  ii.  539. 
Tallmadge,  James,   jun.,  i. 

15,  16. 
Taney,  Roger  B.,  i.  132-137, 

485,  543;  ii.  130,  315. 
Tappan,  Arthur,  i.  22. 
Tappan,  Mason  W.,  i.  261, 

265,  266,  268. 


Taylor,  Miles,  i.  260. 
Taylor,  Richard,  i.  558. 
Taylor,  Zachary,  i.  62-65, 74- 

77,  81-84,  86-88,  90,  95,  97, 

102,  105,  152,  195,  196,  205, 

241,  318,  320,  321,  330,  502, 

541;  ii.  29,  32,  58,  308,  309, 

362,  364,  423,  424,  602. 
Teller,  Henry  M.,  ii.  565, 566, 

569. 
Ten  Eyck,  John   C.,  i.  266, 

509;  ii.  117,  154,  155. 
Teuterden,  Lord,  ii.  496,  498. 
Terry,  Alfred  H.,  ii.  30. 
Terry,  David  S.,  i.  141. 
Thayer,  John  M.,  ii.  375. 
Thayer,  M.  Russell,  ii.  175, 

253,  259. 
Thomas,  Benjamin  S.,  i.  331, 

417,  421. 
Thomas,  Francis,  i.  375,  465; 

ii.  120,  224,  257,  345. 
Thomas,  George  H.,  i.  355, 

544;  ii.  29,  428-430. 
Thomas,  Jesse  B.,  i.  17. 
Thomas,  John  L.,  jun.,  ii. 

120,  257. 
Thomas,  Lorenzo,  ii.  355,  362, 

378. 
Thomas,  Philip   Francis,  i. 

234,  397. 
Thompson,    Charles    P.,   ii. 

550,  585. 
Thompson,  Jacob,  i.  223,  234, 

240;  ii.  554,  555. 
Thompson,  John  B.,  i.  197. 
Thompson,  M.  Jeff,  i.  558. 
Thompson,  Richard  W.,  ii. 

386,  569,  570,  596. 
Thomson,  John  R.,  i.  315. 
Thornton,  Sir    Edward,    ii. 

495,  4%,  502,  624-630. 
Thurman,  Allen  G.,  i.  54,  67, 

524;  ii.  397,  440-442, 450, 557, 

563,  583,  585,  588,  605,  654, 

667,  668. 

Tibbatts,  John  W.,  i.  75. 
Tilden,  Samuel  J.,  i.  84,  524; 

ii.  221,  397,  521,  549,  572-584, 

586-592,  594,  595,  667,  668. 
Tilton,  Theodore,  ii.  521. 
Tipton,  Thomas  W.,  ii.  374, 

375,  504,  563. 
Tod,  David,  i.  517. 
Todd,  Lemuel,  ii.  542. 
Toombs,  Robert,  i.  117,  119, 

233,  246,  247,  251-253,  261; 

ii.  14,  110,  181,  311,  404,  547, 

554,  555. 

Toucey,  Isaac,  i.  197,  223. 
Tourgee,  Albion  W.,  ii.  225. 
Townsend,   Amos,    ii.    601, 

655. 

Townsend,  Dwight,  ii.  654. 
Townsend,  Martin  I.,  ii.  550, 

588. 
Townsend,  Washington,  ii. 

433. 

Tracy,  B.  F.,  ii.  661,  663. 
Tremaine,  Lyman,  i.  442, 517; 

ii.  386,  541. 
Trescot,  William  H.,  i.  566, 

567;  ii.  631,655. 
Trist,  Nicholas  P.,  i.  74. 


Trowbridge,  Roland  E.,  ii. 
123. 

Trumbull,  Jonathan,  i.  183. 

Trumbull,  Lyman,  i.  123, 135, 
137,  319,  341,  346,  373,  374, 
462,  481,  505,  506;  ii.  156, 
158,  164,  166,  172-174,  177- 
179,  224,  281,  282,  374,  375, 
379,  416,  450,  452^54,  457, 
504,  523-525,  540,  585. 

Tucker,  John  Randolph,  ii. 
549,  585. 

Tucker,  Thomas  Tudor,  i. 
183. 

Turner,  Henry  M.,  ii.  571. 

Twiggs,  David  E.,  i.  286. 

Tyler,  John,  i.  26-28,  39,  40, 
49,  101,  158,  159,  192,  268, 
269,  280,  302,  331;  ii.  55,  57, 
58,  147,  183,  308,  309,  396, 
457,  524. 

Tyner,  James  N.,  ii.  434,  539, 
597. 

Upham,  William,  i.  64. 
Upson,  William  H.,  ii.  433. 
Upshur,  Abel  P.,  i.  26,  27, 29, 

30,  49,  50. 

Urner,  Milton  G.,  ii.  639. 
Usher,  John  P.,  ii.  61. 

Vallandigham,  Clement  L., 
i.  328,  344,  370, 400,  403,  415, 
489-493,  497,  499,  524-526, 
547;  ii.  131,  221, 395, 397, 441. 

Van  Allen,  James  H.,  i.  384. 

Van  Buren,  John,  i.  84. 

Van  Buren,  Martin,  i.  14, 
24,  27-35,  38,  39,  50,  59,  61, 
78-85,  101,  104,  105,  127, 152, 
191,  192,  200,  205,  275,  285, 
443,  541,  548;  ii.  4,  6,  55, 109, 
125,  186,  308,  315,  531,  573, 
575,  646,  647. 

Van  Trump,  ii.  436. 

Vance,  Zebulon  B.,  ii.  397, 
404,  529,  531,  588,  641. 

Van  Horn,  Robert  T.,  ii.  123, 
224. 

Van  Rensselaer,  Jeremiah, 
i.  183. 

Van  Winkle,  Peter  G.,  ii. 
170,  179,  209,  374,  375. 

Van  Wyck,  Charles  H.,  i.  327. 

Van  Zandt,  Charles  C.,  ii. 
386,  569. 

Vest,  George  G.,  ii.  212,  529, 
641. 

Vickers,  George,  ii.  374,  375. 

Vilas,  William  F.,ii.577. 

Viuton,  Samuel  F.,  i.  68,  72; 
ii.  678. 

Voorhees,  Daniel  W.,  i.  329, 
510,  538;  ii.  136-138,  397, 
436,  577,  600. 

Wade,  Benjamin  F.,  i.  42,  98, 
136,  142,  167,  270,  285,  319, 
320,  374,  379,  384,  385,  388, 
461;  ii.  14,  43-45,  48,  178, 
179,  185,  278,  357,  375,  382, 
389-391,  460,  569,  571,  678. 

Wadsworth,  James  S.,  i.&L, 
85,  442,  443;  ii.  31. 


724 


INDEX  OF  NAMES. 


Wadsworth,  "William  H.,  i. 
310,  331,  372,  421. 

Wait,  John  T.,  ii.  601. 

Waite,  Morrison  K.,  ii.  595, 
656,  678. 

Waldron,  Henry,  ii.  511. 

Walker,  Francis  A.,  ii.  608. 

Walker,  Gilbert  C.,  ii.  524. 

Walker,  Robert  J.,  i.  32,  33, 
39,  58,  79,  138,  139,  194,  195. 

Wallace,  Lewis,  i.  357. 

Wallace,  William  A.,  i.  524; 
ii.  405,  528,  551,  577,  605, 
607. 

Walton,  Charles  W.,  i.  420. 

Walworth,  Chancellor,  i.  84. 

Ward,  Hamilton,  ii.  119,  361. 

Ward,  Marcus  L.,  i.  517;  ii. 
387. 

Warmoth,  H.  C.,  ii.  224,  660. 

Warner,  A.  J.,  ii.  639. 

Warner,  Willard,  ii.  447. 

Washburn,  Cadwalader  C., 
i.  197,  261,  265,  266,  268,  270, 
332;  ii.  31,  287,  335,  347, 453, 
639. 

Washburn,  Henry  D.,  ii.  347. 

Washburn,  Israel,  jun.,  i. 
305,  332;  ii.  639. 

Washburn,  William  B.,  ii. 
347,  552. 

Washburn,  William  D.,  ii. 
639. 

Washburne,  Elihu  B.,  i.  197, 
266,  270,  329,  332,  358,  362, 
508-510;  ii.  127,  347,  358, 
424,  426,  427,  507,  539,  639, 
665,666. 

Washington,  George,  i.  93, 
182,  185,  224,  432,  483,  540, 
541,  586;  ii.  28,  32,  49,  68, 
155,  161,  199,  269,  282,  307, 
308,  315,  357,  423,  644,  658, 
672. 

Waters,  C.  C.,  ii.  570. 

Watterson,  Henry,  ii.  577, 
578. 

Watts,  John  W.,  ii.  586. 

Wayne,  James  M.,  ii.  314-316. 

Webb,  Watson,  ii.  531. 

Webster,  Daniel,  i.  26,  27, 38, 
45,  49,  50,  53,  59,  68,  70-73, 
77,  83,  89-94,  96,  97,  101-104, 
106-108,  111,  132,  152,  158, 
159,  189-192,  199,  263,  264, 
271,  284,  300,  330,  413,  434, 
524;  ii.  33,  109,  110,  268,  307, 
308,  364,  379,  426,  446,  456, 
457,  545,  647,  677,  678. 


Webster,  Edwin  H.,  i.  375. 
Webster,  Fletcher,  ii.  33. 
Weed,  Smith  M.,  ii.  591-593. 
Weed,   Thurlow,   i.   82,  126, 

166,   167;    ii.   11,    220,    242, 

389,  390,  532-534. 
Welker,  Martin,  ii.  121. 
Welles,   Gideon,   i.  284,  285, 

552,  581;   ii.  238,  370. 
Wellington,  Duke  of,  ii.  17, 

28. 

Wells,  Calvin,  ii.  659. 
Wells,  David  A.,  ii.  521,  525. 
Wells,  Erastus,  ii.  433. 
Wentworth,  John,  i.  42,  67; 

ii.  122,322,511,521. 
Wheeler,  William  A.,  i.  327; 

ii.  431,  571,  572,   582,  585, 

586,  589. 

Whitaker,  John,  i.  308. 
White,  Andrew  D.,  ii.  460. 
White,  Harry,  ii  386,  602. 
White,  Horace,  ii.  521. 
White,  Hugh  L.,  ii.  6. 
Whitfield,  John  W.,  i.  122. 
Whitney,  William  C.,  ii.  585. 
Whitthorne,  Washington  C., 

ii.  550. 

Whittier,  John  G.,  i.  22. 
Whyte,  William  Pinkney,  ii. 

397,  588,  598,  599,  609. 
Wickham,  W.  C.,  i.  311.    " 
Wickliffe,  Charles  A.,  i.  331, 

380,  381,  524,  526. 
Wigfall,  Louis  T.,  i.  287-289. 
Wilkes,  Charles,  i.  580,  581, 

583,  586,  587. 
Willard,  George,  ii.  542,  583, 

603. 
Willey,  Waitman  T.,  i.  315, 

339,  370,  372,  375,  425,  460- 

462;  ii.  170,  375. 
Williams,  Alpheus  S.,  ii.  550. 
Williams,  Charles  G.,  ii.542. 
Williams,  George  H.,  ii.  117, 

127,  210,  257,  270,  352,  374, 

375,  457,  496,  539,  660. 
Williams,  James  D.,  ii.  577. 
Williams,   John   S.,  ii.  529, 

641,  642. 

Williams,  Seth,  i.  385. 
Williams,   Thomas,   ii.    272, 

344,  345,  3(ji,  372. 
Williamson,  Hugh,  i.  183. 
Willis,  Albert  S.,  ii.  653. 
Willitts,  Edwin,  ii.  601. 
Wilmot,  David,  i.  42,  66,  67, 

164,  205,  206,  320,  321,  503; 

ii.  4,  441. 


Wilson,  Henry,  i.  77, 135, 137, 

197,  320,  323,  369,  379,  388- 

390,  423,  452,  4(52,  477;  ii. 

102,   142-145,  224,  374,  375, 

390,  391,  414,  416,  504,  505, 

527,  538,  544. 
Wilson,  James,  i.  432. 
Wilson,    James    (Iowa),   ii. 

542. 
Wilson,  James  F.,  i.  332,  505; 

ii.   113,   174,   175,   258,  260, 

342,  344-346,  358,  361,  362. 
Wilson,  Jeremiah  M.,  ii.  511. 
Wilson,  Robert,  i.  425. 
Windom,  William,  i.  266, 332: 

ii.  665. 
Winthrop,  Robert  C.,  i.  66, 

67,  72,73,88;  ii.  221,678. 
Wise,  Henry  A.,  i.  27,  59,  70, 

125,  155. 

Wistar,  Isaac  J.,  i.  383. 
Withers,  Robert  E  ,  ii.  551. 
Wood,  Benjamin,  ii.  221. 
Wood,  Fernando,  i.  502,  506: 

ii.  221,  343,  409,  436. 
Woodbridge,    Frederic,    ii. 

345. 

Woodburn,  William,  ii.  585. 
Woodford,    Stewart    L.,    ii. 

519,  526,  543,  569,  571,  572. 
Woods,  William,  ii.  656. 
Woodward,  George  W.,  i.  58, 

195,    196,  497;   ii.  221,   358, 

359,  397,  436. 

Wool,  John  E.,  ii.  228,  229. 
Woolley,  C.  W.,  ii.  591. 
Worden,    John    L.,   i.    359, 

361. 

Wren,  Thomas,  ii.  653. 
Wright,  George  G.,  ii.  561. 
Wright,  Hendrick  B.,  ii.  638. 
Wright,  Joseph  A.,  i.  427. 
Wright,   Silas,   i.  27,  33,  34, 

70,  78-81,  104,  170,  191,  193, 

285,442,521;  ii.  187. 
Wright,  William,  ii.  158,  159, 

161, 178. 


Yancey,  William  L.,  i.  175. 
Yates,  Richard,  i.  307;  ii.  117, 

374,  375,  506.      . 
Young,  John,  i.  79,  84. 
Young,  Thomas  L.,  ii.  639. 
Yulee,  David  L.,  i.  244,  250- 

252. 


Zollicoffer,  Felix  K.,  i.  355. 


THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  SANTA  CRUZ 


This  book  is  due  on  the  last  DATE  stamped  below. 

FEB  1  6  1972 
20 


APR  25  '98 

JUN081998REC'0 

JUN111998REC'D 
JUL  2  0  2001  RECO 


50m-6,'67(H2523s8)2373 


